ArticleScientific reports2023
Using beat-to-beat heart signals for age-independent biometric verification.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Use of non-stationary physiological signals for biometric verification, reduces the ability to forge. Such signals should be simple to acquire with inexpensive equipment. The beat-to-beat information embedded within the time intervals between consecutive heart beats is a non-stationary physiological signal; its potential for biometric verification has not been studied. This work introduces a biometric verification method termed "CompaRR". Heartbeat was extracted from longitudinal recordings from 30 mice ranging from 6 to 24 months of age (equivalent to ~ 20-75 human years). Fifty heartbeats, which is close to resting human heartbeats in a minute, were sufficient for the verification task, achieving a minimal equal error rate of 0.21. When trained on 6-month-old mice and tested on unseen mice up to 18-months of age (equivalent to ~ 50 human years), no significant change in the verification performance was noted. Finally, when the model was trained on data from drug-treated mice, verification was still possible.
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.