ArticleScientific reports2025
Quantitative comparison of the performance of acoustic, optical and pressure sensors for pulse wave analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models linking traditional Chinese medicine knowledge and clinical practice.Chinese medicine · 2026Review
- Effect of posture on photoplethysmography signals from the posterior tibial artery in adults with and without type 2 diabetes.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arterial pulse wave measurement is beneficial in clinical health assessment and is important for effectively diagnosing different types of cardiovascular disease. Computational pulse signal analysis utilizes sensors and signal processing techniques to understand, classify, and predict disease pulse patterns. However, the choice of sensor types impacts the measurement results. This study presents the first comprehensive quantitative comparison of three sensor modalities (acoustic, optical, and pressure) for radial pulse measurement, employing a novel multi-parameter analysis framework that combines time-domain, frequency-domain, and PRV measures. Among various available types, three types of sensors are compared: an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor, and a pressure sensor. Pulse wave signals were recorded from the radial artery of 30 participants using these three sensors, and the performance was evaluated using various feature extraction methods like time domain, frequency domain and pulse rate variability (PRV) measures. Further, statistical analysis (ANOVA) of the PRV measures was carried out to compare the differences in the means of the various PRV measures. Time and frequency domain features varied across sensor types, but no statistical differences were found in PRV measures across sensors. Based on the experimental results, the pressure sensor was found to perform better in capturing comprehensive wrist pulse information. The research provides evidence-based guidelines for sensor selection in pulse wave analysis applications. The findings have direct applications in developing wearable cardiovascular monitoring devices, where sensor choice critically impacts device accuracy and reliability. and clinical settings requiring pulse wave analysis for cardiovascular disease diagnosis.
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.