ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Clinical performance of an atrial fibrillation burden tracking algorithm: Evaluation against reference public and clinical textile electrocardiographic datasets.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, increases risks of stroke, heart failure, and mortality. Short-term electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring often misses paroxysmal or asymptomatic AF, underscoring the value of textile ECG platforms for continuous real-world rhythm assessment. Objective: To develop and clinically validate a lightweight, interpretable algorithm for AF detection and burden estimation using textile ECG recordings acquired during daily life. Methods: We developed Textile AF-Tracker (TAF-Tracker), an RR-interval-based machine learning pipeline using entropy, Lorenz-plot, statistical, and fragmentation features with ECG quality metrics to detect AF in 60-beat segments. Multiple classifiers (Random Forest, XGBoost, Support Vector Machine, logistic regression, and a threshold-based method) were trained on public AF datasets and long-term 3-lead textile ECG recordings (SKIIN™). Data were split by subject into training, validation, and test sets to ensure unseen data were tested. Results: Across public long-term AF datasets, Random Forest and XGBoost achieved 96%-99% accuracy, 95%-99% sensitivity, and 96%-99% specificity. In 14-day textile ECG recordings from 47 AF patients, XGBoost reached 98.4% accuracy (sensitivity 96.1%, specificity 98.7%). AF burden showed a median absolute error of 1.3% (interquartile range 0.7%-1.8%). In healthy and noise stress data, specificity remained ≥99%, even during activity. Conclusion: A lightweight RR-interval-based machine learning algorithm on textile ECG accurately detects AF and quantifies burden in long-term recordings with minimal error. Combined with a comfortable multi-lead textile platform, it provides a practical alternative to Holter monitors and implantable devices for continuous AF surveillance and treatment assessment.
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.