↓ Skip to main content

MDPI

Accuracy in Wrist-Worn, Sensor-Based Measurements of Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in a Diverse Cohort

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Personalized Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 3,486)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
209 news outlets
blogs
16 blogs
twitter
269 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
4 Redditors
video
17 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
464 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
756 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy in Wrist-Worn, Sensor-Based Measurements of Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in a Diverse Cohort
Published in
Journal of Personalized Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.3390/jpm7020003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Shcherbina, C. Mikael Mattsson, Daryl Waggott, Heidi Salisbury, Jeffrey W. Christle, Trevor Hastie, Matthew T. Wheeler, Euan A. Ashley

Abstract

The ability to measure physical activity through wrist-worn devices provides an opportunity for cardiovascular medicine. However, the accuracy of commercial devices is largely unknown. The aim of this work is to assess the accuracy of seven commercially available wrist-worn devices in estimating heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) and to propose a wearable sensor evaluation framework. We evaluated the Apple Watch, Basis Peak, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Mio Alpha 2, PulseOn, and Samsung Gear S2. Participants wore devices while being simultaneously assessed with continuous telemetry and indirect calorimetry while sitting, walking, running, and cycling. Sixty volunteers (29 male, 31 female, age 38 ± 11 years) of diverse age, height, weight, skin tone, and fitness level were selected. Error in HR and EE was computed for each subject/device/activity combination. Devices reported the lowest error for cycling and the highest for walking. Device error was higher for males, greater body mass index, darker skin tone, and walking. Six of the devices achieved a median error for HR below 5% during cycling. No device achieved an error in EE below 20 percent. The Apple Watch achieved the lowest overall error in both HR and EE, while the Samsung Gear S2 reported the highest. In conclusion, most wrist-worn devices adequately measure HR in laboratory-based activities, but poorly estimate EE, suggesting caution in the use of EE measurements as part of health improvement programs. We propose reference standards for the validation of consumer health devices (http://precision.stanford.edu/).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 269 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 756 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 751 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 123 16%
Researcher 105 14%
Student > Bachelor 103 14%
Student > Master 72 10%
Other 37 5%
Other 119 16%
Unknown 197 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 93 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 92 12%
Sports and Recreations 78 10%
Computer Science 65 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 4%
Other 163 22%
Unknown 234 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1927. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#5,011
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Personalized Medicine
#1
of 3,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63
of 328,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Personalized Medicine
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them