ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Real-Time Comparison of Machine Learning-Enabled Devices for Measuring Compensatory Reserve Status.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In this work, the real-time measurement of compensatory reserve metrics is compared during a simulated central hypovolemia clinical research study. We hypothesized that values generated from the compensatory reserve measurement (CRM) device would be statistically similar to those values generated from the compensatory reserve index (CRI) device. A study was conducted to collect data from noninvasive photoplethysmography sensors to validate the CRM against an FDA-cleared CRI device. Participants were placed in a lower body negative pressure (LBNP) chamber and underwent exposure to a stepwise protocol of increasing negative pressure. Data from both algorithmic devices were evaluated using multiple approaches: median error, median absolute error, and pooled Pearson correlations. Data were compared from 20 participants through the duration of the experiment. Pooled correlation analysis between CRM and CRI for all subjects and LBNP steps achieved R
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.