ArticleBiosensors2026
Interval-Level Validation of a Wearable Dry-Electrode ECG Biosensor Platform: A Proof-of-Concept Study.
Article in Biosensors, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wearable dry-electrode electrocardiographic (ECG) systems may enable longer and more comfortable rhythm monitoring, but their interval-level measurement fidelity requires validation against reference acquisition systems. In this single-center proof-of-concept study, 20 participants (10 healthy volunteers and 10 cardiology patients) underwent simultaneous ECG recordings with a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared wearable dry-electrode platform (X-trodes System M) and a wired reference system (MP150 with ECG100C module, Biopac Systems). Three-minute paired segments were recorded and underwent temporal synchronization, bandpass filtering, baseline correction, automated discrete-wavelet peak detection in NeuroKit2 (version 0.2.10), and standardized manual adjudication. After predefined exclusions for temporal alignment and P-wave detection quality, agreement was assessed in nine cardiac and ten healthy participants for RR intervals and in seven cardiac and eight healthy participants for P-to-R peak intervals. RR interval agreement was excellent in the healthy and cardiac cohorts, with a mean bias of 0.4 ± 3.1 ms and 0.1 ± 4.6 ms and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.97 ms and 1.28 ms, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was over 0.99 for both cohorts. P-to-R peak interval agreement was strong, with an MAE of 1.76 ms and 7.14 ms and ICC of 0.96 and 0.98, respectively. These findings provide preliminary evidence of interval-level agreement for the X-trodes wearable dry-electrode ECG biosensor platform under controlled, short-duration daytime conditions. Because the matched interval pairs were clustered within a small number of participants, the findings should be regarded as proof-of-concept evidence supporting larger ambulatory validation studies rather than as definitive clinical validation.
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.