Cargando…
Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination
Recent study points to the value of a non-linear heart rate variability (HRV) biomarker using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) for aerobic threshold determination (HRVT). Significance of recording artefact, correction methods and device bias on DFA a1 during exercise and HRVT is unclear. Gas...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7865269/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33530473 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21030821 |
_version_ | 1783647806412554240 |
---|---|
author | Rogers, Bruce Giles, David Draper, Nick Mourot, Laurent Gronwald, Thomas |
author_facet | Rogers, Bruce Giles, David Draper, Nick Mourot, Laurent Gronwald, Thomas |
author_sort | Rogers, Bruce |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recent study points to the value of a non-linear heart rate variability (HRV) biomarker using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) for aerobic threshold determination (HRVT). Significance of recording artefact, correction methods and device bias on DFA a1 during exercise and HRVT is unclear. Gas exchange and HRV data were obtained from 17 participants during an incremental treadmill run using both ECG and Polar H7 as recording devices. First, artefacts were randomly placed in the ECG time series to equal 1, 3 and 6% missed beats with correction by Kubios software’s automatic and medium threshold method. Based on linear regression, Bland Altman analysis and Wilcoxon paired testing, there was bias present with increasing artefact quantity. Regardless of artefact correction method, 1 to 3% missed beat artefact introduced small but discernible bias in raw DFA a1 measurements. At 6% artefact using medium correction, proportional bias was found (maximum 19%). Despite this bias, the mean HRVT determination was within 1 bpm across all artefact levels and correction modalities. Second, the HRVT ascertained from synchronous ECG vs. Polar H7 recordings did show an average bias of minus 4 bpm. Polar H7 results suggest that device related bias is possible but in the reverse direction as artefact related bias. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7865269 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78652692021-02-07 Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination Rogers, Bruce Giles, David Draper, Nick Mourot, Laurent Gronwald, Thomas Sensors (Basel) Article Recent study points to the value of a non-linear heart rate variability (HRV) biomarker using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA a1) for aerobic threshold determination (HRVT). Significance of recording artefact, correction methods and device bias on DFA a1 during exercise and HRVT is unclear. Gas exchange and HRV data were obtained from 17 participants during an incremental treadmill run using both ECG and Polar H7 as recording devices. First, artefacts were randomly placed in the ECG time series to equal 1, 3 and 6% missed beats with correction by Kubios software’s automatic and medium threshold method. Based on linear regression, Bland Altman analysis and Wilcoxon paired testing, there was bias present with increasing artefact quantity. Regardless of artefact correction method, 1 to 3% missed beat artefact introduced small but discernible bias in raw DFA a1 measurements. At 6% artefact using medium correction, proportional bias was found (maximum 19%). Despite this bias, the mean HRVT determination was within 1 bpm across all artefact levels and correction modalities. Second, the HRVT ascertained from synchronous ECG vs. Polar H7 recordings did show an average bias of minus 4 bpm. Polar H7 results suggest that device related bias is possible but in the reverse direction as artefact related bias. MDPI 2021-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7865269/ /pubmed/33530473 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21030821 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Rogers, Bruce Giles, David Draper, Nick Mourot, Laurent Gronwald, Thomas Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination |
title | Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination |
title_full | Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination |
title_fullStr | Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination |
title_short | Influence of Artefact Correction and Recording Device Type on the Practical Application of a Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Biomarker for Aerobic Threshold Determination |
title_sort | influence of artefact correction and recording device type on the practical application of a non-linear heart rate variability biomarker for aerobic threshold determination |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7865269/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33530473 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21030821 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rogersbruce influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination AT gilesdavid influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination AT drapernick influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination AT mourotlaurent influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination AT gronwaldthomas influenceofartefactcorrectionandrecordingdevicetypeonthepracticalapplicationofanonlinearheartratevariabilitybiomarkerforaerobicthresholddetermination |