ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Re-evaluating heart rate variability biomarkers for glucose sensing: the impact of age normalisation and subject-independent validation.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart rate variability (HRV) derived from electrocardiogram (ECG) signals offers a promising non-invasive window into glycemic status; however, existing studies frequently combine distinct glucose measurements and employ validation strategies susceptible to data leakage. Because HRV declines by approximately 3-5% per decade due to age-related autonomic degeneration, absolute HRV values conflate the effects of aging with diabetes-specific autonomic dysfunction. We hypothesised that normalising HRV features using an age-dependent scaling factor would isolate the diabetes-specific component and improve glycemic status estimation.
methodsWe analysed ECG-derived features from 43 male type 2 diabetes patients with strictly separated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; n = 29; 3-month glycemic average) and fasting blood glucose (FBG; n = 38; acute status). Leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) cross-validation (CV) with within-fold feature selection and standardisation prevented information leakage. Twenty machine learning algorithms and six age-adjustment methods were compared, with normalisation sensitivity tested across 20 parameter combinations. Statistical validation employed permutation testing (n = 500) and bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.
resultsExtra trees regression achieved the best performance: R² = 0.222 (r = 0.476, p = 0.009) for HbA1c and R² = 0.086 (r = 0.344, p = 0.034) for FBG, corresponding to mean absolute errors of 1.18% points and 2.27 mmol/L respectively. Permutation testing confirmed that both associations exceeded the chance level (p = 0.002). Contrary to our hypothesis, none of the six age-adjustment methods nor any of the 20 sensitivity parameter combinations improved performance, indicating that age-related HRV decline did not confound glycemic estimation in this cohort. CV hygiene differentially affected model families: tree-based ensembles maintained positive performance, whereas linear models collapsed to negative R² values, revealing substantial bias from conventional practices. Neural networks with minimally configured hyperparameters failed for these sample sizes (R² ranging from - 8.2 to - 10,879).
conclusionsStrict within-fold preprocessing fundamentally alters conclusions in HRV-based glycemic status estimation, exposing inflated performance to conventional CV practices. Bootstrap confidence intervals excluding zero (HbA1c R²: [0.13, 0.82]; FBG R²: [0.10, 0.72]) provided statistical evidence for genuine HRV-glycemic associations, but performance remained insufficient for standalone clinical use. This study establishes methodological standards for separating glycemic targets, subject-independent validation with within-fold preprocessing, and comprehensive baselines to advance non-invasive glycemic monitoring research. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not Applicable.
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.