Photoplethysmography-Based Machine Learning Approaches for Atrial Fibrillation Burden: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden is associated with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart failure. Recent advancements in photoplethysmography (PPG) technology have provided new insights into noninvasive and convenient AF burden detection. Objective: This study aimed to establish an AF burden model based on smartwatch-monitored PPG technology to track the progression of AF. Methods: This prospective pilot study (January 2024 to January 2025) at the Chinese PLA General Hospital enrolled patients with paroxysmal AF. Participants underwent simultaneous rhythm monitoring using smartwatch PPG and 24-hour Holter electrocardiogram monitoring (the gold standard). Five PPG-derived AF burden metrics were defined: (1) ratio of AF episode duration to total monitoring time (M1), (2) ratio of AF episode frequency to total measurements (M2), (3) AF episode density (M3), (4) AF episode variability (M4), and (5) proportion of rapid ventricular rate in AF episodes (>120 beats per minute; M5). Smartwatch PPG signals were collected once per minute. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, and F1 score were used to evaluate the PPG algorithm's AF detection capability through comparison with the gold standard (24-hour Holter monitoring). The mean absolute error (MAE) and Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) were used to assess the correlation between the PPG-based AF burden metrics and the gold standard. Results: A total of 145 participants with paroxysmal AF (n=96, 66.2% male; mean age 63.28, SD 14.23 years) were included. Compared to the gold standard, the PPG-based AF burden model demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.5% (95% CI 87.9%-95.1%), specificity of 97.2% (95% CI 95.9%-98.5%), precision of 92.9% (95% CI 88.6%-97.3%), accuracy of 93.3% (95% CI 88.2%-98.5%), and F1 score of 90.5% (95% CI 86.3%-94.7%). The AF burden model exhibited strong discriminatory power in the test cohort (area under the curve=89.5%, 95% CI 89.4%-89.7%). For M1, the MAE for the model of AF episode duration as a proportion of total monitoring time was 0.0400 (P=.008), with a correlation coefficient (rs) of 0.8788 (P<.001). For M4, the MAE for the AF episode variability model was 3.9967 (P<.001), with a correlation coefficient (rs) of 0.7876 (P<.001). The MAE for the average real variability model was 4.6436 (P<.001), with a correlation coefficient (rs) of 0.8127 (P<.001). The MAE for the average AF change model was 0.3893 (P=.27), with a correlation coefficient (rs) of 0.7246 (P<.001). Conclusions: The PPG-based AF burden model demonstrated high concordance with the gold standard of 24-hour Holter monitoring in tracking AF episode duration and variability, providing new perspectives for exploring AF progression dynamics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".