ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Machine Learning Classification of Physiological Dynamics During Standardized Task-Demand Transitions.
Article in Bioengineering (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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A major barrier to developing adaptive human-machine systems is the lack of interpretable physiological markers for characterizing physiological responses associated with changes in task demands. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of machine-learning classification of physiological responses during simple and complex task stages and two standardized task-demand transitions-baseline/rest-to-simple and simple-to-complex-in cognitive and motor-cognitive protocols. Sixty-nine healthy volunteers completed cognitive tasks involving normal and 180° inverted-text reading and motor-cognitive tasks involving simple and complex movement sequences performed with the non-dominant hand. Each protocol comprised a 1 min baseline followed by three consecutive blocks, each including a 1 min simple task, a 1 min complex task, and a 1 min rest period. Photoplethysmography (PPG), skin conductance (SC), and abdominal respiration were recorded continuously. Pulse-to-pulse (PP) intervals were extracted from the PPG signal, and conventional heart rate variability (HRV) indices, including mean RR interval, HR range, SDNN, RMSSD, Total Power, and SD2, were calculated in Kubios HRV from the PPG-derived interval series. Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine models were trained using either absolute physiological values or dynamic features (Δ%) calculated for the baseline/rest-to-simple and simple-to-complex transitions. Models based on dynamic features consistently demonstrated higher classification performance than those based on absolute physiological values. For the motor-cognitive protocol, Random Forest achieved an accuracy of 0.726 and a ROC-AUC of 0.730, whereas for the cognitive protocol, Support Vector Machine achieved an accuracy of 0.655 and a ROC-AUC of 0.722 on the held-out participant-level test set. The most informative features included mean RR interval (derived from PPG), Total Power, RMSSD, SDNN, SD2, and HR range in both protocols. Comparable feature-importance patterns across protocols suggest overlap in the physiological variables contributing to classification under the standardized experimental conditions. These findings are limited to the fixed transition sequence used in the present study and require confirmation in randomized or counterbalanced designs.
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.