ArticleScientific reports2024
Novel metrics for tracking blood pressure changes incontinuous cuffless blood pressure estimations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies revealed the importance of tracking continuous blood pressure (BP) changes in monitoring and controlling hypertension and diagnosing cardiovascular diseases. However, current evaluation protocols utilize distance measures as primary metrics, which cannot properly evaluate the ability of the estimation model to track BP changes. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework which evaluates the distance and trend similarity metrics, and the composite metric of both between the reference and estimated BPs. The results of applying both widely used conventional metrics and the new proposed metrics for BP estimations are demonstrated in an example of comparing the reference with a set of different BP estimations. Then, the metrics are applied to BP estimations obtained using state-of-the-art (SOTA) algorithms. It is shown that even though SOTA algorithms have a low mean and standard deviation of absolute difference, they are not capable of tracking short-term blood pressure changes. Additionally, the proposed metrics are normalized metrics and range from -1 to 1, making them intuitively interpretable, similar to well-known correlation coefficients. Therefore, we suggest that the proposed evaluation framework should be used regularly in evaluating continuous BP monitoring systems.
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.