Back

Digital Data Collection Reduces Terminal Digit Bias in Haemodynamic and Physical Activity Measures in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Rothman, A. M. K.; Wason, J.; Toshner, M.

2025-05-23 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2025.05.21.25328105 medRxiv
Show abstract

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive condition requiring precise measurement of pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), cardiac output (CO), and exercise capacity for diagnosis and therapeutic evaluation. Terminal digit preference, a form of observer bias favouring values ending in 0 and 5, has been reported in PAH clinical trials, potentially introducing significant measurement error. In the FIT-PH study (NCT04078243), we evaluated whether terminal digit preference occurs in remotely collected cardiopulmonary data from implanted monitors in 35 patients with PAH. Over 18,000 haemodynamic and 34,000 heart rate and activity measurements were analysed. No evidence of terminal digit preference was found in systolic or mean PAP, CO, heart rate, or physical activity. A non-uniform terminal digit distribution in diastolic PAP was observed but attributed to physiological constraints rather than rounding bias. These findings demonstrate that digital remote monitoring minimises observer-related bias, enhancing accuracy in PAH research and clinical care

Published in Pulmonary Circulation (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
○ 140 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.0%
Similar papers in this journal
Pulmonary Circulation · published here
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
European Respiratory Journal
● 59 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Critical Care Explorations
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
Similar papers in this journal
5
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
● 35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.9%
7
ERJ Open Research
● 47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
8
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.4%
9
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.2%
10
Respiratory Research
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
11
JMIR Formative Research
◐ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
12
Thorax
● 35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
CHEST
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
14
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
◐ 43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
15
PLOS Digital Health
● 106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
○ 106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
BJGP Open
● 13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Hypertension
○ 36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
19
Clinical Epidemiology
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
○ 53 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Journal of Clinical Medicine
○ 97 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
● 11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
23
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Medicine
○ 120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Pediatrics
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
Open Heart
● 21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
● 43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.