Key result
Integrated wearable system measures HR, RR, and SpO2 with <5% error vs clinical reference equipment.
Why the study?
Does a low-cost, integrated wearable system achieve acceptable measurement accuracy for cardiorespiratory monitoring compared to clinical-grade reference equipment in healthy volunteers?
Cross-Sectional (n=43)
No
Does a low-cost, integrated wearable system achieve acceptable measurement accuracy for cardiorespiratory monitoring compared to clinical-grade reference equipment in healthy volunteers?
A novel, low-cost wearable system demonstrated technical feasibility and acceptable accuracy for monitoring heart rate and respiratory rate in healthy volunteers, paving the way for future validation in cardiovascular patients.
Accuracy in healthy volunteers supports wearable development; leaves open validation for heart-attack detection in patients.
Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with ischaemic heart disease the leading contributor and acute myocardial infarction accounting for the majority of ischaemic heart disease deaths. This study presents the development and technical validation of a low-cost, integrated wearable system for multi-parameter cardiorespiratory monitoring designed to support heart-attack detection algorithms. The system comprises two devices: a wristband incorporating a MAX30105 photoplethysmography sensor for cardiac pulse-wave and SpO[Formula: see text] acquisition, and a chest band featuring novel optical respiratory detection and an MPU6050 inertial measurement unit for respiratory rate and movement monitoring. Both devices use ESP32-C3 microcontrollers with Bluetooth Low Energy connectivity to a custom mobile application enabling real-time visualization and cloud-based storage. Validation was conducted against clinical-grade reference equipment (ADInstruments physiograph and EDAN iM8 monitor) in 43 healthy volunteers, yielding 50 acquisitions: 30 at rest and 20 post-physical activity. This is a technical feasibility study in healthy young volunteers; validation in clinical populations remains future work. Heart rate showed the closest agreement with the reference (percentage error ±1.94%, [Formula: see text] post-activity; limits of agreement [Formula: see text] to 4.21 BPM), followed by respiratory rate (±3.47%, [Formula: see text]). SpO[Formula: see text] error remained within tolerance (1.64% at rest, 2.98% post-activity) but showed weak correlation with the reference owing to range restriction in a healthy cohort, and is not yet suitable for applications requiring absolute saturation values. This study demonstrates that a low-cost, multi-sensor wearable system can achieve accuracy meeting the prespecified feasibility criterion ([Formula: see text]5% error) in a healthy young cohort, establishing technical feasibility as a prerequisite to validation in the cardiovascular patient populations for which the system is ultimately intended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramírez et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers (n=43). Integrated wearable system for cardiorespiratory monitoring vs. Clinical-grade reference equipment was evaluated on Measurement accuracy (mean absolute percentage error) of heart rate, respiratory rate, and SpO2. The integrated wearable system achieved a mean absolute percentage error of less than 5% for heart rate, respiratory rate, and SpO2 compared to clinical reference equipment in healthy volunteers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: