ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Artefact Detection in Impedance Pneumography Signals: A Machine Learning Approach.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Respiratory Monitoring in Motion: An Overview of Wearable Methods and Algorithmic Approaches for Reliable Assessment.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Radar-Based Monitoring: A Proof of Principle Study in a Piglet Model for a Novel Approach in Non-Contact Vital Sign Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Human bioimpedance-based state detection technologies for sports health monitoring: a review.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Leveraging Central Sleep Apnea Events to Validate the Measurement of Lung Volume Changes Using Thoracic Bio-Impedance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Towards the Development of the Clinical Decision Support System for the Identification of Respiration Diseases via Lung Sound Classification Using 1D-CNN.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Electrical Impedance Tomography, Artificial Intelligence, and Variable Ventilation: Transforming Respiratory Monitoring and Treatment in Critical Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Electrical bioimpedance in the era of artificial intelligence.Journal of electrical bioimpedance · 2024Article
- Sensor-Location-Specific Joint Acquisition of Peripheral Artery Bioimpedance and Photoplethysmogram for Wearable Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Children's Pain Identification Based on Skin Potential Signal.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Data Augmentation and Transfer Learning for Data Quality Assessment in Respiratory Monitoring.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Outcomes of Vital Sign Monitoring of an Acute Surgical Cohort With Wearable Sensors and Digital Alerting Systems: A Pragmatically Designed Cohort Study and Propensity-Matched Analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Impedance pneumography has been suggested as an ambulatory technique for the monitoring of respiratory diseases. However, its ambulatory nature makes the recordings more prone to noise sources. It is important that such noisy segments are identified and removed, since they could have a huge impact on the performance of data-driven decision support tools. In this study, we investigated the added value of machine learning algorithms to separate clean from noisy bio-impedance signals. We compared three approaches: a heuristic algorithm, a feature-based classification model (SVM) and a convolutional neural network (CNN). The dataset consists of 47 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients who performed an inspiratory threshold loading protocol. During this protocol, their respiration was recorded with a bio-impedance device and a spirometer, which served as a gold standard. Four annotators scored the signals for the presence of artefacts, based on the reference signal. We have shown that the accuracy of both machine learning approaches (SVM: 87.77 ± 2.64% and CNN: 87.20 ± 2.78%) is significantly higher, compared to the heuristic approach (84.69 ± 2.32%). Moreover, no significant differences could be observed between the two machine learning approaches. The feature-based and neural network model obtained a respective AUC of 92.77±2.95% and 92.51±1.74%. These findings show that a data-driven approach could be beneficial for the task of artefact detection in respiratory thoracic bio-impedance signals.
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.