ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Discrepancies between Promised and Actual AI Capabilities in the Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring of In-Hospital Patients: A Review of the Current Evidence.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Prognostic Value of Traditional and Optimised Vital Sign Thresholds for Risk of Serious Adverse Events in Continuously Monitored Hospitalised Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous vital sign monitoring (CVSM) with wireless sensors in general hospital wards can enhance patient care. An artificial intelligence (AI) layer is crucial to allow sensor data to be managed by clinical staff without over alerting from the sensors. With the aim of summarizing peer-reviewed evidence for AI support in CVSM sensors, we searched PubMed and Embase for studies on adult patients monitored with CVSM sensors in general wards. Peer-reviewed evidence and white papers on the official websites of CVSM solutions were also included. AI classification was based on standard definitions of simple AI, as systems with no memory or learning capabilities, and advanced AI, as systems with the ability to learn from past data to make decisions. Only studies evaluating CVSM algorithms for improving or predicting clinical outcomes (e.g., adverse events, intensive care unit admission, mortality) or optimizing alarm thresholds were included. We assessed the promised level of AI for each CVSM solution based on statements from the official product websites. In total, 467 studies were assessed; 113 were retrieved for full-text review, and 26 studies on four different CVSM solutions were included. Advanced AI levels were indicated on the websites of all four CVSM solutions. Five studies assessed algorithms with potential for applications as advanced AI algorithms in two of the CVSM solutions (50%), while 21 studies assessed algorithms with potential as simple AI in all four CVSM solutions (100%). Evidence on algorithms for advanced AI in CVSM is limited, revealing a discrepancy between promised AI levels and current algorithm capabilities.
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.