↓ Skip to main content

Autonomic Differentiation Map: A Novel Statistical Tool for Interpretation of Heart Rate Variability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Autonomic Differentiation Map: A Novel Statistical Tool for Interpretation of Heart Rate Variability
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00401
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Lucini, Nadia Solaro, Massimo Pagani

Abstract

In spite of the large body of evidence suggesting Heart Rate Variability (HRV) alone or combined with blood pressure variability (providing an estimate of baroreflex gain) as a useful technique to assess the autonomic regulation of the cardiovascular system, there is still an ongoing debate about methodology, interpretation, and clinical applications. In the present investigation, we hypothesize that non-parametric and multivariate exploratory statistical manipulation of HRV data could provide a novel informational tool useful to differentiate normal controls from clinical groups, such as athletes, or subjects affected by obesity, hypertension, or stress. With a data-driven protocol in 1,352 ambulant subjects, we compute HRV and baroreflex indices from short-term data series as proxies of autonomic (ANS) regulation. We apply a three-step statistical procedure, by first removing age and gender effects. Subsequently, by factor analysis, we extract four ANS latent domains that detain the large majority of information (86.94%), subdivided in oscillatory (40.84%), amplitude (18.04%), pressure (16.48%), and pulse domains (11.58%). Finally, we test the overall capacity to differentiate clinical groups vs. control. To give more practical value and improve readability, statistical results concerning individual discriminant ANS proxies and ANS differentiation profiles are displayed through peculiar graphical tools, i.e., significance diagram and ANS differentiation map, respectively. This approach, which simultaneously uses all available information about the system, shows what domains make up the difference in ANS discrimination. e.g., athletes differ from controls in all domains, but with a graded strength: maximal in the (normalized) oscillatory and in the pulse domains, slightly less in the pressure domain and minimal in the amplitude domain. The application of multiple (non-parametric and exploratory) statistical and graphical tools to ANS proxies defines differentiation profiles that could provide a better understanding of autonomic differences between clinical groups and controls. ANS differentiation map permits to rapidly and simply synthesize the possible difference between clinical groups and controls, evidencing the ANS latent domains that have at least a medium strength of discrimination, while the significance diagram permits to identify the single ANS proxies inside each ANS latent domain that resulted in significant comparisons according to statistical tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,820,984
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,190
of 13,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,330
of 326,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#135
of 496 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 326,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 496 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.