ArticleDigital health
Clinical human activity recognition based on a wearable patch of combined tri-axial ACC and ECG sensors.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Digital Technologies for Monitoring and Rehabilitation Support in Chronic Dust-Induced Lung Diseases: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of ECG and Motion Signals in the Context of Activity Recognition and Human Identification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In digital medicine, human activity recognition (HAR) can be used to track and assess a patient's progress throughout rehabilitation, enhancing the quality of life for the elderly and the disabled. Methods: A patch-type flexible sensor that integrated dynamic electrocardiogram (ECG) and acceleration signal (ACC) was used to record the signals of the various behavioral activities of 20 healthy volunteers and 25 patients with pneumoconiosis. Seven HAR tasks were then carried out on the data using four different deep learning methods (CNN, LSTM, CNN-LSTM and GRU). Results: When ECG and ACC were obtained simultaneously, the overall accuracy rates of HAR for healthy group were 0.9371, 0.8829, 0.9843 and 0.9486 by the CNN, LSTM, CNN-LSTM and GRU models, respectively. In contrast, the overall accuracy rates of HAR for the pneumoconiosis patients' group were 0.8850, 0.7975, 0.9425 and 0.8525 by the four corresponding models. The accuracy of HAR for both groups using all four models is higher than when only ACC signal is detected. Conclusion: The addition of the ECG signal significantly improves HAR outcomes in the group of healthy individuals, while having relatively less enhancing effects on the group of patients with pneumoconiosis. When ECG and ACC signals were combined, the increase in HAR accuracy was notable compared to cases where no ECG data was provided. These results suggest that the combination of ACC and ECG data can represent a novel method for the clinical application of HAR.
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.