ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating a ballistocardiography derived respiratory rate algorithm through comprehensive clinical validation across multiple settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous respiratory rate (RR) monitoring is key for early deterioration detection, but conventional methods require contact. Ballistocardiography (BCG) offers an unobtrusive alternative using an under-mattress sensor. This study evaluated a BCG-based RR algorithm across diverse clinical settings and populations. BCG data from 11 studies involving 400 subjects across wards, ICUs, sleep labs, and healthy volunteers were analyzed. Reference RR was measured using capnography or polysomnography. An algorithm processed BCG signals via filtering,, dynamic thresholding, and median filtering to estimate RR. Performance was assessed by mean absolute error (MAE), detection rate (DR), and agreement with reference using Bland-Altman, Deming regression, and Pearson’s coefficient. Across 68,342 reference datapoints the algorithm achieved an MAE of 1.29 BrPM and a 92.68% detection rate. Performance was consistent across studies, with MAE ranging from 0.96 to 1.8 BrPM and detection rates from 85 to 97%. Accuracy was higher in controlled settings (e.g., sleep lab: MAE − 0.96 BrPM, 95.8% detection) and slightly lower in wards (MAE ~ 1.6 BrPM, 86–93% detection). Subgroup analyses by geography, demographics, and comorbidities showed consistently low error and good detection, except in COPD patients, where detection dropped to ~ 78% (MAE-1.3 BrPM). Bland–Altman and Deming regression showed minimal bias (–0.39 BrPM) and strong correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.86). A continuous, unobtrusive BCG-based RR measure offers high accuracy and detection, supporting its use in early respiratory event detection and improved patient care.
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.