ArticlePsychophysiology2022
Validation of a new impedance cardiography analysis algorithm for clinical classification of stress states.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impedance cardiogram based exploration of cardiac mechanisms in post-traumatic stress disorder during trauma recall.Psychophysiology · 2024Article
- Data-driven approach for automatic detection of aortic valve opening: B point detection from impedance cardiogram.Psychophysiology · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pre-ejection period (PEP) is an index of sympathetic nervous system activity that can be computed from electrocardiogram (ECG) and impedance cardiogram (ICG) signals, but sensitive to speech/motion artifact. We sought to validate an ICG noise removal method, three-stage ensemble-average algorithm (TEA), in data acquired from a clinical trial comparing active versus sham non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (tcVNS) after standardized speech stress. We first compared TEA's performance versus the standard conventional ensemble-average algorithm (CEA) approach to classify noisy ICG segments. We then analyzed ECG and ICG data to measure PEP and compared group-level differences in stress states with each approach. We evaluated 45 individuals, of whom 23 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We found that the TEA approach identified artifact-corrupted beats with intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.99 compared to expert adjudication. TEA also resulted in higher group-level differences in PEP between stress states than CEA. PEP values were lower in the speech stress (vs. baseline rest) group using both techniques, but the differences were greater using TEA (12.1 ms) than CEA (8.0 ms). PEP differences in groups divided by PTSD status and tcVNS (active vs. sham) were also greater when using the TEA versus CEA method, although the magnitude of the differences was lower. In conclusion, TEA helps to accurately identify noisy ICG beats during speaking stress, and this increased accuracy improves sensitivity to group-level differences in stress states compared to CEA, suggesting greater clinical utility.
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.