MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416117939 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ae1e57

Bioimpedance for peripheral edema assessment in heart failure and clinical practice: a systematic review

2025· article· en· W4416117939 on OpenAlexafffund
Shania Tubana-Dean, A. Hofmann, Eleonora Razzicchia, Emily Porter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint JeromeMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsWearable computerHeart failurePeripheral edemaSoftware portabilityTelemedicinePeripheral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. Peripheral edema is a common issue among elderly individuals with chronic conditions such as heart failure (HF). Continuous, non-invasive monitoring may enable earlier intervention, reduced hospital readmissions, and improved quality of life. This systematic review aims to evaluate the use of bioimpedance (BI) as a method for monitoring peripheral edema, with a particular focus on portable and wearable applications for remote health management. Approach. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science to identify studies utilizing BI for the detection or monitoring of lower limb edema with potential for portability or wearability. Main results. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies focused on HF patients, while nine involved other populations, such as healthy individuals, patients with limb injuries, or those on hemodialysis. Ten studies featured or proposed portable BI devices, whereas four remained at the proof-of-concept stage without portable implementations. There was significant variability in device design, measurement protocols, and target populations. While existing results show promise, few studies evaluated systems in real-world or long-term monitoring scenarios. Significance. BI is a promising, non-invasive approach for the continuous monitoring of peripheral edema, particularly in remote and home-based settings. However, current research is limited by small sample sizes, lack of standardization, and minimal validation in diverse, real-world environments. Further development of wearable systems and robust clinical validation is essential to support broader clinical adoption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207