ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Development of an efficient deep learning model for arrhythmia detection from consumer smartwatches.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac arrhythmias often progress without clear symptoms and may remain undetected until severe complications occur. Continuous monitoring through consumer smartwatches offers a scalable and non-invasive opportunity for real-time rhythm screening in free-living conditions. However, wrist-based photoplethysmography (PPG) signals are highly susceptible to motion artifacts and inter-subject variability, limiting traditional signal-processing techniques. In this work, we compare classical machine learning and deep learning approaches for multi-class arrhythmia classification from real-life smartwatch PPG and accelerometer recordings collected in the Pulsewatch clinical trial. Three rhythm categories are considered: normal sinus rhythm (NSR), atrial fibrillation (AF), and premature atrial or ventricular contractions (PAC/PVC). Methods: The evaluated approaches include a Random Forest classifier based on engineered temporal and morphological features, together with two end-to-end architectures, CNN-GRU and CNN-BiLSTM, designed to learn temporal patterns directly from raw two-channel smartwatch waveforms while addressing motion artifacts, sensor noise, and cross-subject generalization. Results: Under two-fold subject-independent cross-validation, the Random Forest achieved the highest average accuracy among the proposed methods (91.22%), together with the best macro precision (85.89%), macro F Discussion: Compared with the Pulsewatch baselines reported by Han et al., the proposed methods improved the available macro-level metrics, with the Random Forest obtaining the strongest macro precision and macro F Conclusion: Overall, this work highlights the trade-offs between the analyzed approaches in terms of accuracy, class-balanced performance, computational complexity, and deployment feasibility for wearable cardiac monitoring systems.
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.