| Literature DB >> 35271148 |
Eujessika Rodrigues1, Daniella Lima2, Paulo Barbosa2, Karoline Gonzaga2, Ricardo Oliveira Guerra1, Marcela Pimentel1, Humberto Barbosa3, Álvaro Maciel1.
Abstract
Remote monitoring platforms based on advanced health sensors have the potential to become important tools during the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting the reduction in risks for affected populations such as the elderly. Current commercially available wearable devices still have limitations to deal with heart rate variability (HRV), an important health indicator of human aging. This study analyzes the role of a remote monitoring system designed to support health services to older people during the complete course of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil, since its beginning in Brazil in March 2020 until November 2021, based on HRV. Using different levels of analysis and data, we validated HRV parameters by comparing them with reference sensors and tools in HRV measurements. We compared the results obtained for the cardiac modulation data in time domain using samples of 10 elderly people's HRV data from Fitbit Inspire HR with the results provided by Kubios for the same population using a cardiac belt, with the data divided into train and test, where 75% of the data were used for training the models, with the remaining 25% as a test set for evaluating the final performance of the models. The results show that there is very little difference between the results obtained by the remote monitoring system compared with Kubios, indicating that the data obtained from these devices might provide accurate results in evaluating HRV in comparison with gold standard devices. We conclude that the application of the methods and techniques used and reported in this study are useful for the creation and validation of HRV indicators in time series obtained by means of wearable devices based on photoplethysmography sensors; therefore, they can be incorporated into remote monitoring processes as seen during the pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: heart rate variability; remote monitoring; wearables
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35271148 PMCID: PMC8915092 DOI: 10.3390/s22052001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overview of the SMH mobile app. (a) is a walk screen and (b) is a sleep screen.
Figure 2Overview of the SMH web dashboard.
Figure 3History of heart rate variability screen.
Figure 4Excerpt of the swagger documentation of the HRV metrics.
Figure 5Metrics data model for HRV.
Figure 6Model overview.
Figure 7Development process workflow.
Figure 8ADF Test.
Figure 9Comparison of the interpolation methods.
Figure 10Data splitting.
Figure 11Hyperparameter tuning.
Figure 12Neural Networks’ models.
Figure 13Loss versus number of epoch.
Approximation model’s performance.
| Algorithm | RMSE |
|---|---|
| Logistic Regression | 4.95 |
| KNN | 4.01 |
| Decision Tree | 4.07 |
| Random Forest | 3.83 |
| AdaBoost | 3.91 |
| Linear Regression | 2.80 |
| RNN | 2.30 |
| LSTM | 2.23 |
Figure 14Comparison of the correction methods.
Figure 15Information flow of the experiment to validate HRV parameters in the SMH platform.
Figure 16Standard deviation of the of all normal RR intervals (SDNN) of the same group of patients for Kubios and SMH.
Figure 17The root mean square of successive differences between normal heartbeats (RMSSD) for Kubios and SMH.
Figure 18Results for the percentage of successive RR intervals that differ by more than 50 ms (pNN50) using Kubios and SMH.
Paired Student’s t-test to check if there is any difference in the observations obtained for Fitbit data using SMH in comparison with Polar H10 data on Kubios.
| Metric | t-value | ||
| SDNN | 1.772 | 0.110 | |
| RMSSD | 1.150 | 0.280 | |
| pNN50 | 0.025 | 0.980 | |