ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Computational and Memory Efficiency in Heartbeat Rate Detection: A Review of ECG and PPG Techniques.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
(1) Background: Heartbeat detection from electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmograph (PPG) signals is widely used in wearable devices for health monitoring, fitness tracking, and stress assessment. While numerous methods have been proposed, their practical suitability depends not only on accuracy but also on computational and memory constraints inherent to resource-limited systems. (2) Methods: A scoping review of 52 studies published between 2017 and 2024 was conducted, covering time-domain, frequency-domain, matrix-based, and machine learning approaches. The methods were evaluated according to estimation accuracy, computational complexity, memory footprint, and suitability for on-device implementation. (3) Results: Time-domain peak detection methods consistently provide high accuracy (minimum of 79.25%, maximum of 99.96%, and median ≥99.69%) for ECG and reliable heart rate estimation for PPG with linear computational complexity, low memory requirements and low energy consumption. Frequency-domain approaches are suitable for average heart rate estimation from PPG but do not preserve inter-beat intervals (error range of [1.07, 6.4] beats per minute (BPM)). Matrix-based and machine learning methods often entail higher computational cost without proportional performance gains in wearable contexts (error range of [1.07, 6.4] BPM for PPG signals; accuracy in range of [95.4, 99.96]% for ECG). (4) Conclusions: Lightweight signal-processing techniques offer the most favorable trade-off between accuracy and efficiency for wearable implementations, whereas computationally intensive approaches are better suited for edge- or cloud-based processing.
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.