ArticleScientific reports2025
Audio and video nearables for monitoring respiratory rate in sleeping dogs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of Remote Camera-Based Respiratory Motion Detection in Hospitalized Dogs Using the InsectEye Image-Analysis Application: A Pilot Study.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Respiratory Diseases in Dogs and Cats: A Systematic Review.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of respiratory rate (RR) in dogs is critical for early detection of respiratory and cardiac conditions. However, current solutions are often invasive, or impractical for at-home use. This study aims to evaluate four smartphone-based nearable methods (two audio-based and two video-based) for non-invasive RR monitoring in sleeping dogs. 27 dogs were recorded during natural sleep using four different setups: (A) audio with earphone microphone, (B) audio with smartphone microphone, (C) video from a top-down perspective, and (D) video from a lateral view. Signals were processed to estimate RR. Manual breath counting served as the reference. All methods demonstrated good agreement with the reference. RMSE ranged from 1.1 to 2.2 bpm, MAE from 0.7 to 1.5 bpm. Video-based methods performed better, with method D achieving the lowest errors (RMSE = 1.1 bpm, MAE = 0.7 bpm, bias = 0.00 bpm) and tightest limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis ([-2.17, + 2.17] bpm). Pearson's R² was above 0.97 for all methods except B. Friedman tests revealed no significant differences among methods. Based on these results, smartphone-based nearable solutions are accurate for non-invasive respiratory monitoring in sleeping dogs. Video-based methods are more robust, while audio methods may be suitable for dogs with audible breathing patterns.
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.