Comparison of Wired and Wireless Heart Rate Monitoring in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), infants' vital signs are monitored on a continuous basis via wired devices. These often interfere with patient care and pose increased risks of skin damage, infection, and tangling around the body. Recently, a wireless system for neonatal monitoring called ANNEⓇ One (Sibel Health, Chicago, USA) was developed. We designed an ongoing study to evaluate the feasibility, reliability and accuracy, of using this system in the NICU. Vital signals were simultaneously acquired by using the standard, wired clinical monitor and the ANNEⓇ device. Data from 10 NICU infants were recorded for 8 hours per day during 4 consecutive days. Initial analysis of the heart rate (HR) data revealed four problems in comparing the signals: 1) gaps in the signals - periods of time for which data were unavailable, 2) wired and wireless signals were sampled at different rates, 3) a delay between the sampled values of wired and wireless signals, and 4) this delay increased with time. To address these problems, we developed a pre-processing algorithm that interpolated samples in short gaps, resampled the signals to an equal rate, estimated the delay and drift rate between corresponding signals, and aligned the signals. Applications of the pre-processing algorithm to 40 recordings demonstrated that it was very effective. A strong agreement between wireless and wired HR signals was seen, with an average correlation of 0.95±0.04, a slope of 1.00, and a variance accounted for 89.56±7.62%. Bland-Altman analysis showed a low bias across the ensemble, with an average difference of 0.11 (95% confidence interval of -0.02 to 0.24) bpm.Clinical relevance- This algorithm provides the means for a detailed comparison of wired and wireless monitors in the NICU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".