ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2024
A two-phased study on the use of remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) in paediatric care.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07491978 (Development and Multicenter Validation of an AI-Based Remote Photoplethysmography), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Development and Multicenter Validation of an AI-Based Remote Photoplethysmography (rPPG) Facial Scan for Multimodal Health Assessment: Agreement With Clinical, Laboratory, and Psychological Parameters in an Urban Population
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based neonatal heart rate monitoring technologies: Systematic review.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2026Article
- Roadmap of remote photoplethysmography from heart rate measurement toward clinical translation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Seconds Matter: Rapid Non-Contact Monitoring of Heart and Respiratory Rate from Face Videos.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of heart rate measurement using remote photoplethysmography and deep learning.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advancements in medical technologies have led to the development of contact-free methods of haemodynamic monitoring such as remote photoplethysmography (rPPG). rPPG uses video cameras to interpret variations in skin colour related to blood flow, which are analysed to generate vital signs readings. rPPG potentially ameliorates problems like fretfulness and fragile skin contact associated with conventional probes in children. While rPPG has been validated in adults, no prior validation has been performed in children. Methods: A two-phased prospective cross-sectional single-centre study was conducted from January to April 2023 to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and accuracy of obtaining heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and oxygen saturation (SpO Results: Ten neonates and 28 children aged 5 to 16 years were recruited for Phase 1 (765 datapoints). All patients were haemodynamically stable and normothermic. Patients and caregivers showed high acceptability to rPPG. rPPG values were clinically discrepant for children <10 years. For those ≥10 years, moderate correlation was observed for HR, with Spearman's correlation coefficient (Rs) of 0.50 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42, 0.57]. We performed Phase 2 on 23 patients aged 12 to 16 years (559 datapoints). Strong correlation was observed for HR with Rs=0.82 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.85). There was weak correlation for SpO Conclusions: Our study showed that rPPG is acceptable and feasible for neonates and children aged 5 to 16 years, and HR values in older children aged 12 to 16 years correlated well with the current standard. The rPPG algorithms need to be further refined for younger children, and for obtaining RR and SpO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.