ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A feasibility study evaluating seismocardiography for the detection of heart failure.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to develop a seismocardiograph (SCG)- based algorithm and assess its diagnostic performance in the detection of heart failure (HF). A total of 218 subjects were included: 198 with suspected HF and 20 with known HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were included for testing only. Assessments were conducted using SCG, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), electrocardiogram, NYHA classification and echocardiography. SCG-based algorithms, "AnyHF score" were developed to identify all subtypes of HF and "HFrEF-score" to identify HFrEF. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). The AnyHF score demonstrated an AUC of 82%, sensitivity of 90.9%, specificity of 43.8%, NPV of 87.5% and PPV of 52.6% in detecting HF versus no HF. A balanced comparative analysis was performed between NT-proBNP and the HFrEF-score for detecting HFrEF versus no HF. NT-proBNP demonstrated an AUC of 94.7%, sensitivity 94.1%, specificity 68.8%, NPV 99%, and PPV 27.1%. The HFrEF-score showed an AUC of 92.9%, sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 92% (p < 0.001), NPV 98.4%, and PPV 57.7% (p = 0.007). The SCG-scores also categorized 71 patients (51%) from the no HF group, referred on suspicion of HF, as minimal risk of HF. This study suggests that SCG has potential to aid in the diagnostic process of HF. The SCG-based algorithms "AnyHF-score" and "HFrEF-score" demonstrated high diagnostic performance in identifying HF.
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.