Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33917824›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Artefact Detection in Impedance Pneumography Signals: A Machine Learning Approach.

Jonathan Moeyersons, John Morales, Nick Seeuws, Chris Van Hoof, Evelien Hermeling, Willemijn Groenendaal, Rik Willems, Sabine Van Huffel, Carolina Varon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Electrical bioimpedance in the era of artificial intelligence.Journal of electrical bioimpedance · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jonathan MoeyersonsSTADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1152-1293
John MoralesSTADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
Nick SeeuwsSTADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7024-3417
Chris Van HoofImec, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
Evelien HermelingImec the Netherlands/Holst Centre, 5600 Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Willemijn GroenendaalImec the Netherlands/Holst Centre, 5600 Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Rik WillemsDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University Hospitals of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Sabine Van HuffelSTADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5939-0996
Carolina VaronSTADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9581-0676

Funding

Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen 150466:Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds KU Leuven C24/18/097
6 · The paper itself

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

ArtifactsSupport Vector MachineAlgorithmsElectric ImpedanceHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, Computerbio-impedancemachine learningqualityrespirationsignal analysis

Identifiers

PMID33917824
PMCPMC8068282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.