Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35303265›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2022

Verhulst map measures: new biomarkers for heart rate classification.

Atefeh Goshvarpour, Ateke Goshvarpour

RetractedAbstract readRetracted Publication
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Atefeh GoshvarpourDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran.
Ateke GoshvarpourDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan, Iran. ak_goshvarpour@imamreza.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5185-5645

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recording, monitoring, and analyzing biological signals has received significant attention in medicine. A fundamental phase for understanding a bio-system under various conditions is to process the corresponding bio-signal appropriately. To this effect, different conventional and nonlinear approaches have been proposed. However, since the non-stationary properties of the bio-signals are not revealed by traditional linear methods, nonlinear dynamical techniques play a crucial role in examining the behavior of a bio-system. This work proposes new bio-markers based on the chaotic nature of the biomedical signals. These measures were introduced using the Verhulst map, a simple tool for characterizing the morphology of the reconstructed phase space. For this purpose, we extracted the features from the heart rate (HR) signals of six groups of meditators and non-meditators. For a typical classification problem, the performance of some conventional classifiers, including the k-nearest neighbor, support vector machine, and Naïve Bayes, was appraised separately. In addition, the competence of a hybrid classification strategy was inspected using majority voting. The results indicated a maximum accuracy, F1-score, and sensitivity of 100%. These findings reveal that the proposed framework is eminently capable of analyzing and classifying the HR signals of the groups. In conclusion, the Verhulst diagram-based measures are simple and based on the dynamics of the bio-signals, which can be served for quantifying different signals in medical systems.

Indexed as

Nonlinear DynamicsSupport Vector MachineBayes TheoremBiomarkersHeart RateBiomarkersA hybrid classifierClassificationHeart rateMeditationVerhulst diagram

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.