Why the study?
Does the proposed methodological framework for estimating correlation dimension in HRV signals improve the accuracy of identifying pregnant women at risk for hypotension before spinal anesthesia?
Does the proposed methodological framework for estimating correlation dimension in HRV signals improve the accuracy of identifying pregnant women at risk for hypotension before spinal anesthesia?
Novel approaches for estimating correlation dimension in HRV signals (D(2(⊥)) and D(2(max))) improve the accuracy of predicting hypotension in pregnant women undergoing spinal anesthesia.
This paper presents a methodological framework for robust estimation of the correlation dimension in HRV signals. It includes (i) a fast algorithm for on-line computation of correlation sums; (ii) log-log curves fitting to a sigmoidal function for robust maximum slope estimation discarding the estimation according to fitting requirements; (iii) three different approaches for linear region slope estimation based on latter point; and (iv) exponential fitting for robust estimation of saturation level of slope series with increasing embedded dimension to finally obtain the correlation dimension estimate. Each approach for slope estimation leads to a correlation dimension estimate, called D₂, D(2(⊥)), and D(2(max)). D₂ and D(2(max)) estimate the theoretical value of correlation dimension for the Lorenz attractor with relative error of 4%, and D(2(⊥)) with 1%. The three approaches are applied to HRV signals of pregnant women before spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in order to identify patients at risk for hypotension. D₂ keeps the 81% of accuracy previously described in the literature while D(2(⊥)) and D(2(max)) approaches reach 91% of accuracy in the same database.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bolea et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: