Figure 1. Correlation and agreement of AF burden methods.

A, Scatter plot and regression line of the PPG‐derived AF burden estimates vs AF burden determined by the reference patch ECG. The Pearson correlation coefficient (R ²) was 0.986. B, Bland–Altman analysis shows agreement between quantification of AF burden as estimated by the PPG‐based algorithm and as determined from the reference patch ECG. Blue dots represent the difference in percent AF burden between methods for each AF‐positive subject. The continuous line is the average value of difference between AF burden calculation methods (0.8%), and the dotted lines represent the upper and lower 95% limits of agreement (ie, the interval of 2 SDs of the measurement differences on either side of the average difference; 8.2%, −6.6%). AF indicates atrial fibrillation; and PPG, photoplethysmography.