ArticlePloS one2026
Smartwatch-based detection of loss of pulse.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a framework and a novel dataset for detecting loss of pulse cases using a smartwatch. Our methodology for gathering data involves inducing controlled pulse loss in the forearm within a clinical setting under medical supervision. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multimodal dataset comprising photoplethysmogram (PPG) signals, inertial measurements (IMUs) that can be obtained from a commercially available smartwatch, and continuous recordings as ground truth, collected from 20 individuals. This dataset serves as a valuable resource for the research community to advance and verify techniques for detecting pulse loss and differentiate between the non-usage of smartwatches to prevent false alarms. Our presented framework consists of extracting several features from signals and employing machine learning models designed to differentiate between the emergency loss of pulse cases with the non-usage of smartwatches. The presented framework achieves a detection accuracy of up to 97.1%, with a false detection rate of 1.0 in an hour when evaluated using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation.
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.