↓ Skip to main content

Sudden Cardiac Risk Stratification with Electrocardiographic Indices - A Review on Computational Processing, Technology Transfer, and Scientific Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Sudden Cardiac Risk Stratification with Electrocardiographic Indices - A Review on Computational Processing, Technology Transfer, and Scientific Evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco J. Gimeno-Blanes, Manuel Blanco-Velasco, Óscar Barquero-Pérez, Arcadi García-Alberola, José L. Rojo-Álvarez

Abstract

Great effort has been devoted in recent years to the development of sudden cardiac risk predictors as a function of electric cardiac signals, mainly obtained from the electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis. But these prediction techniques are still seldom used in clinical practice, partly due to its limited diagnostic accuracy and to the lack of consensus about the appropriate computational signal processing implementation. This paper addresses a three-fold approach, based on ECG indices, to structure this review on sudden cardiac risk stratification. First, throughout the computational techniques that had been widely proposed for obtaining these indices in technical literature. Second, over the scientific evidence, that although is supported by observational clinical studies, they are not always representative enough. And third, via the limited technology transfer of academy-accepted algorithms, requiring further meditation for future systems. We focus on three families of ECG derived indices which are tackled from the aforementioned viewpoints, namely, heart rate turbulence (HRT), heart rate variability (HRV), and T-wave alternans. In terms of computational algorithms, we still need clearer scientific evidence, standardizing, and benchmarking, siting on advanced algorithms applied over large and representative datasets. New scenarios like electronic health recordings, big data, long-term monitoring, and cloud databases, will eventually open new frameworks to foresee suitable new paradigms in the near future.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 20 19%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 20 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Engineering 10 10%
Computer Science 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,791,786
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,168
of 13,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,484
of 298,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#82
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 298,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.