Identification of thresholds for accuracy comparisons of heart rate and respiratory rate in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) can be challenging to measure accurately and reliably in neonates. The introduction of innovative, non-invasive measurement technologies suitable for resource-constrained settings is limited by the lack of appropriate clinical thresholds for accuracy comparison studies. Methods: We collected measurements of photoplethysmography-recorded HR and capnography-recorded exhaled carbon dioxide across multiple 60-second epochs (observations) in enrolled neonates admitted to the neonatal care unit at Aga Khan University Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. Trained study nurses manually recorded HR, and the study team manually counted individual breaths from capnograms. For comparison, HR and RR also were measured using an automated signal detection algorithm. Clinical measurements were analyzed for repeatability. Results: A total of 297 epochs across 35 neonates were recorded. Manual HR showed a bias of -2.4 (-1.8%) and a spread between the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of 40.3 (29.6%) compared to the algorithm-derived median HR. Manual RR showed a bias of -3.2 (-6.6%) and a spread between the 95% LOA of 17.9 (37.3%) compared to the algorithm-derived median RR, and a bias of -0.5 (1.1%) and a spread between the 95% LOA of 4.4 (9.1%) compared to the algorithm-derived RR count. Manual HR and RR showed repeatability of 0.6 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5-0.7), and 0.7 (IQR 0.5-0.8), respectively. Conclusions: Appropriate clinical thresholds should be selected a priori when performing accuracy comparisons for HR and RR. Automated measurement technologies typically use median values rather than counts, which significantly impacts accuracy. A wider spread between the LOA, as much as 30%, should be considered to account for the observed physiological nuances and within- and between-neonate variability and different averaging methods. Wider adoption of thresholds by data standards organizations and technology developers and manufacturers will increase the robustness of clinical comparison studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".