ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
An Evaluation of Non-Contact Photoplethysmography-Based Methods for Remote Respiratory Rate Estimation.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep learning and remote photoplethysmography powered advancements in contactless physiological measurement.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The respiration rate (RR) is one of the physiological signals deserving monitoring for assessing human health and emotional states. However, traditional devices, such as the respiration belt to be worn around the chest, are not always a feasible solution (e.g., telemedicine, device discomfort). Recently, novel approaches have been proposed aiming at estimating RR in a less invasive yet reliable way, requiring the acquisition and processing of contact or remote Photoplethysmography (contact reference and remote-PPG, respectively). The aim of this paper is to address the lack of systematic evaluation of proposed methods on publicly available datasets, which currently impedes a fair comparison among them. In particular, we evaluate two prominent families of PPG processing methods estimating Respiratory Induced Variations (RIVs): the first encompasses methods based on the direct extraction of morphological features concerning the RR; and the second group includes methods modeling respiratory artifacts adopting, in the most promising cases, single-channel blind source separation. Extensive experiments have been carried out on the public BP4D+ dataset, showing that the morphological estimation of RIVs is more reliable than those produced by a single-channel blind source separation method (both in contact and remote testing phases), as well as in comparison with a representative state-of-the-art Deep Learning-based approach for remote respiratory information estimation.
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.