ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of the performance of a machine learning based atrial fibrillation screening algorithm using an oscillometric blood pressure monitor.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Comparison between automated electronic blood pressure monitor and electrocardiography in atrial fibrillation screen.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
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
Blood pressure monitors (BPMs) with atrial fibrillation (AFib) detection function can be used to detect AFib early. However, conventional algorithms require multiple BP measurements. Here, the feasibility of a machine-learning-based approach for AFib detection through single BP measurement was evaluated. First, a custom AdaBoost-based software, which analyzes the pulse-to-pulse interval (PPI) pattern and classifies it based on AFib detection, was created. Then, its classification performance was validated. For the validation study, PPI and standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) datasets were collected from 79 and 92 Japanese participants with and without AFib, respectively. PPI data were obtained using two different BPMs. All ECG results were interpreted by cardiologists. The custom software output for the PPI dataset and ECG interpreted results was compared, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A sensitivity and specificity for PPI from main device were 97.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.2-99.3%) and 98.9 (95% CI 94.1-99.8), respectively. No significant differences in sensitivity and specificity were observed in the subgroup analysis between different devices, age groups, and arm size groups. These results reflect the high accuracy and robustness of this AFib algorithm using a single BP measurement and supports its use for widespread AFib screening.
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.