Key result
Minimally spaced electrode positions (24 mm distance) achieved signal correlations to gold-standards up to 0.77 ± 0.12 for ECG and 0.65 ± 0.35 for respiratory frequency in healthy volunteers.
Why the study?
Do minimally spaced electrode positions provide high signal correlations to gold-standard ECG and respiratory measurements in healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=17)
Do minimally spaced electrode positions provide high signal correlations to gold-standard ECG and respiratory measurements in healthy volunteers?
Minimally spaced electrodes (24 mm) can provide reasonable signal correlations for ECG and respiratory frequency compared to gold standards, potentially improving patient compliance in continuous monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimally spaced electrodes feasible in volunteers; leaves open validation and compliance impact in patients.
Unobtrusive medical instrumentation is a key in continuous patient monitoring. To increase compliance, multi-functional sensor concepts and measurement sites different from gold-standards are used. In this work, we aim to combine both approaches. We focus on minimally spaced electrode positions with high signal correlations to gold-standards. We present twofold experimental data from six and eleven healthy volunteers and provide chest positions with individual correlations up to 0.83 ± 0.06 for ECG and 0.73 ± 0.28 for the respiratory frequency. Using a performance index, we assess positions with correlations up to 0.77 ± 0.12 for ECG and 0.65 ± 0.35 for the respiratory frequency with 24 mm electrode distance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klum et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=17). Minimally spaced electrode positions vs. Gold-standard measurement sites was evaluated on Signal correlations to gold-standards for ECG and respiratory frequency. Minimally spaced electrode positions (24 mm distance) achieved signal correlations to gold-standards up to 0.77 ± 0.12 for ECG and 0.65 ± 0.35 for respiratory frequency in healthy volunteers.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: