In-Ear SpO2: A Tool for Wearable, Unobtrusive Monitoring of Core Blood Oxygen Saturation

  1. Harry J. Davies
  2. Ian Williams
  3. Nicholas S. Peters
  4. Danilo P. Mandic

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The non-invasive estimation of blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) by pulse oximetry is of vital importance clinically, from the detection of sleep apnea to the recent ambulatory monitoring of hypoxemia in the delayed post-infective phase of COVID-19. In this proof of concept study, we set out to establish the feasibility of SpO2 measurement from the ear canal as a convenient site for long term monitoring, and perform a comprehensive comparison with the right index finger—the conventional clinical measurement site. During resting blood oxygen saturation estimation, we found a root mean square difference of 1.47% between the two measurement sites, with a mean difference of 0.23% higher SpO2 in the right ear canal. Using breath holds, we observe the known phenomena of time delay between central circulation and peripheral circulation with a mean delay between the ear and finger of 12.4 s across all subjects. Furthermore, we document the lower photoplethysmogram amplitude from the ear canal and suggest ways to mitigate this issue. In conjunction with the well-known robustness to temperature induced vasoconstriction, this makes conclusive evidence for in-ear SpO2 monitoring being both convenient and superior to conventional finger measurement for continuous non-intrusive monitoring in both clinical and everyday-life settings.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/s20174879
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.08.20124883: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.08.20124883v1 on medRxiv