ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of nonparametric and parametric methods for time-frequency heart rate variability analysis in a rodent model of cardiovascular disease.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic artificial intelligence in cardiology: from generative models to clinical applications.European heart journal open · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Relationship between Baseline Autonomic Tone and Haemodynamic Effects of Dexmedetomidine.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of time-varying heart rate variability spectral analysis is to detect and quantify changes in the heart rate variability spectrum components during nonstationary events. Of the methods available, the nonparametric short-time Fourier Transform and parametric time-varying autoregressive modeling are the most commonly employed. The current study (1) compares short-time Fourier Transform and autoregressive modeling methods influence on heart rate variability spectral characteristics over time and during an experimental ozone exposure in mature adult spontaneously hypertensive rats, (2) evaluates the agreement between short-time Fourier Transform and autoregressive modeling method results, and (3) describes the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Although similar trends were detected during ozone exposure, statistical comparisons identified significant differences between short-time Fourier Transform and autoregressive modeling analysis results. Significant differences were observed between methods for LF power (p ≤ 0.014); HF power (p ≤ 0.011); total power (p ≤ 0.027); and normalized HF power (p = 0.05). Furthermore, inconsistencies between exposure-related observations accentuated the lack of agreement between short-time Fourier Transform and autoregressive modeling overall. Thus, the short-time Fourier Transform and autoregressive modeling methods for time-varying heart rate variability analysis could not be considered interchangeable for evaluations with or without interventions that are known to affect cardio-autonomic activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.