Continuous Atrial Fibrillation Monitoring From Photoplethysmography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring for atrial fibrillation (AF) using photoplethysmography (PPG) from smartwatches or other wearables is challenging due to periods of poor signal quality during motion or suboptimal wearing. As a result, many consumer wearables sample infrequently and only analyze when the user is at rest, which limits the ability to perform continuous monitoring or to quantify AF. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare 2 methods of continuous monitoring for AF in free-living patients: a well-validated signal processing (SP) heuristic and a convolutional deep neural network (DNN) trained on raw signal. METHODS: We collected 4 weeks of continuous PPG and electrocardiography signals in 204 free-living patients. Both SP and DNN models were developed and validated both on holdout patients and an external validation set. RESULTS: The results show that the SP model demonstrated receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) of 0.972 (sensitivity 99.6%, specificity: 94.4%), which was similar to the DNN receiver-operating characteristic AUC of 0.973 (sensitivity 92.2, specificity: 95.5%); however, the DNN classified significantly more data (95% vs 62%), revealing its superior tolerance of tracings prone to motion artifact. Explainability analysis revealed that the DNN automatically suppresses motion artifacts, evaluates irregularity, and learns natural AF interbeat variability. The DNN performed better and analyzed more signal in the external validation cohort using a different population and PPG sensor (AUC, 0.994; 97% analyzed vs AUC, 0.989; 88% analyzed). CONCLUSIONS: DNNs perform at least as well as SP models, classify more data, and thus may be better for continuous PPG monitoring.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".