ArticleBiomedical engineering letters2023
DNN based reliability evaluation for telemedicine data.
Article in Biomedical engineering letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Telemedicine data are measured directly by untrained patients, which may cause problems in data reliability. Many deep learning-based studies have been conducted to improve the quality of measurement data. However, they could not provide an accurate basis for judgment. Therefore, this study proposed a deep neural network filter-based reliability evaluation system that could present an accurate basis for judgment and verified its reliability by evaluating photoplethysmography signal and change in data quality according to judgment criteria through clinical trials. In the results, the deviation of 3% or more when the oxygen saturation was judged as normal according to each criterion was 0.3% and 0.82% for criteria 1 and 2, respectively, which was very low compared to the abnormal judgment (3.86%). The deviation of diastolic blood pressure (≥ 10 mmHg) according to criterion 3 was reduced by about 4% in the normal judgment compared to the abnormal. In addition, when multiple judgment conditions were satisfied, abnormal data were better discriminated than when only one criterion was satisfied. Therefore, the basis for judging abnormal data can be presented with the system proposed in this study, and the quality of telemedicine data can be improved according to the judgment result.
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.