ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Prediction of cardiac cycle duration for cardiac-gated closed-loop auricular vagus nerve stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) is a neuromodulation technology that establishes balance in the autonomic nervous system and, in turn, provides therapy for numerous chronic ailments. Personalized aVNS adapts the stimulation parameters in accordance with the time-varying physiological state of the body, and is suggested to improve the therapeutic outcomes and reduce side effects. The physiological state is estimated via recorded biomarkers such as the electrocardiogram (ECG). aVNS can be delivered in synchrony with any phase of the cardiac cycle before and after the R-peak. This paper proposes the prediction of the duration of the next cardiac cycle after the detected R-peak for the realization of the personalized cardiac-gated closed-loop aVNS applied at any time point during the predicted cardiac cycle. We propose and explore the feasibility of four different prediction methods for predicting the duration of the next cardiac cycle. Two methods are respiration-insensitive, last value and averaging, and the other two are respiration-sensitive, extrapolation and interpolation. Offline recorded ECG waveforms were used to evaluate the different methods. Subsequently, three of the four methods (last value, averaging, and extrapolation) were implemented in real-time on a proprietary aVNS hardware setup, with the data acquisition performed across normal and paced deep breathing. Offline evaluation of the methods revealed that extrapolation and interpolation achieved lower prediction errors during deep breathing with the median absolute error (MdAE) of 32.09 ms (interquartile range 16.07-56.61 ms) and 31.71 ms (15.5-54.06 ms), respectively, as compared with the averaging and last-value methods with 88.75 ms (58.73-124.15 ms) and 40.85 ms (19.7-68.4 ms), respectively. During normal breathing, all evaluated methods yielded lower prediction errors relative to the averaging method 28.5 ms (15.2-43.7 ms). Real-time implementation validated these methods for closed-loop cardiac-gated aVNS, with the best performance achieved by the extrapolation method with 31.4 ms (15.17-55.9 ms) during paced deep breathing. During normal breathing, comparable performance across prediction methods favors the computationally simple last-value approach (MdAE: 31.6 ms). Proposed methods establish the potential of ECG-based R-peak prediction in real-time as a reliable and individual biomarker for the personalized cardiac-gated aVNS, creating a foundation for future clinical applications of aVNS.
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.