↓ Skip to main content

Ambulatory screening tool for sleep apnea: analyzing a single-lead electrocardiogram signal (ECG)

Overview of attention for article published in Sleep and Breathing, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Ambulatory screening tool for sleep apnea: analyzing a single-lead electrocardiogram signal (ECG)
Published in
Sleep and Breathing, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11325-017-1566-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Solveig Magnusdottir, Hugi Hilmisson

Abstract

The goal was to determine the utility and accuracy of automated analysis of single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) data using two algorithms, cardiopulmonary coupling (CPC), and cyclic variation of heart rate (CVHR) to identify sleep apnea (SA). The CPC-CVHR algorithms were applied to identify SA by analyzing ECG from diagnostic polysomnography (PSG) from 47 subjects. The studies were rescored according to updated AASM scoring rules, both manually by a certified technologist and using an FDA-approved automated scoring software, Somnolyzer (Philips Inc., Monroeville, PA). The CPC+CVHR output of Sleep Quality Index (SQI), Sleep Apnea Indicator (SAI), elevated low frequency coupling broadband (eLFCBB) and elevated low frequency coupling narrow-band (eLFCNB) were compared to the manual and automated scoring of apnea hypopnea index (AHI). A high degree of agreement was noted between the CPC-CVHR against both the manually rescored AHI and the computerized scored AHI to identify patients with moderate and severe sleep apnea (AHI > 15). The combined CPC+CVHR algorithms, when compared to the manually scored PSG output presents sensitivity 89%, specificity 79%, agreement 85%, PPV (positive predictive value) 0.86 and NPV (negative predictive value) 0.83, and substantial Kappa 0.70. Comparing the output of the automated scoring software to the manual scoring demonstrated sensitivity 93%, specificity 79%, agreement 87%, PPV 0.87, NPV 0.88, and substantial Kappa 0.74. The CPC+CVHR technology performed as accurately as the automated scoring software to identify patients with moderate to severe SA, demonstrating a clinically powerful tool that can be implemented in various clinical settings to identify patients at risk for SA. NCT01234077.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 62%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 19 66%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,964,203
of 23,063,209 outputs
Outputs from Sleep and Breathing
#126
of 1,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,670
of 315,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sleep and Breathing
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,063,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,402 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.