4.7 Review

Wrist pulse signal acquisition and analysis for disease diagnosis: A review*

Journal

COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Volume 143, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105312

Keywords

Computational pulse diagnosis; Wrist pulse acquisition; Signal analysis and recognition; Benchmarks; Review; Computational pulse diagnosis; Wrist pulse acquisition; Signal analysis and recognition; Benchmarks; Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides a systematic review of the latest advances in computational pulse diagnosis (CPD), including pulse signal acquisition, signal preprocessing, feature extraction, and signal recognition. It also highlights the need for datasets and benchmarks to further develop CPD.
Pulse diagnosis (PD) plays an indispensable role in healthcare in China, India, Korea, and other Orient countries. It requires considerable training and experience to master. The results of pulse diagnosis rely heavily on the practitioner's subjective analysis, which means that the results from different physicians may be inconsistent. To overcome these drawbacks, computational pulse diagnosis (CPD) is used with advanced sensing techniques and analytical methods. Focusing on the main processes of CPD, this paper provides a systematic review of the latest advances in pulse signal acquisition, signal preprocessing, feature extraction, and signal recognition. The most relevant principles and applications are presented along with current progress. Extensive comparisons and analyses are conducted to evaluate the merits of different methods employed in CPD. While much progress has been made, a lack of datasets and benchmarks has limited the development of CPD. To address this gap and facilitate further research, we present a benchmark to evaluate different methods. We conclude with observations of the status and prospects of CPD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available