Mobile Applications for Heart Rate Variability: Search and Content Analysis (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a noninvasive indicator of autonomic nervous system activity that is increasingly used for health and performance monitoring. Digital and mobile technologies are increasingly providing opportunities for remote HRV monitoring outside of laboratory-based settings. Objective: This study aimed to describe the landscape of mobile apps that measure, analyze, and provide feedback on HRV, with a focus on how HRV is measured, analyzed, interpreted, and communicated to users. A secondary aim was to assess the transparency of these apps, including the extent to which they disclose the evidence underpinning their HRV metrics and feedback. Methods: This study was an app store search and content analysis. Searches were conducted in the Google Play Store and Apple iTunes Store. Apps were eligible for inclusion if they had functionality to record, analyze, or provide feedback on HRV and were available in English. Data were extracted from app descriptions, screenshots, websites, and, where necessary, contact with developers. Data were extracted on app metadata (developer, release and update dates, and pricing), alongside information about HRV measurement, analysis, and feedback. This included the type of sensor used; HRV measurement characteristics (sensor placement, recording duration, and body position or standardization procedures); methods to calculate and interpret HRV (ie, metrics derived and how they were interpreted for users); and additional app functionality such as reminders, the ability to log self-reported stressors, and the type of feedback or guidance provided based on HRV. We used previously published criteria for assessing the quality of information on the internet, which included authorship, scientific attribution, currency of updates, and data privacy. Results: Of 746 apps identified, 206 met eligibility criteria. Of these, 132 were primary measurement apps, 59 were aggregators, and 15 were hybrid. Photoplethysmogram was the most common sensing modality (n=117, 56.8%), followed by multiple sensors (n=60, 29.1%). Full data extraction across app metadata and HRV measurement and analysis data was only achievable for 93 (45.1%) apps, representing a transparent subset with sufficient available information for content analysis. The most commonly reported HRV metrics were root mean square of successive differences (n=51) and SD of normal-to-normal intervals (n=48), while frequency-domain power (n=22) and low frequency to high frequency ratios (n=15) were less common. Most apps presented data as personalized trends or individualized ranges (76/93, 81.7%), emphasizing user-specific context rather than isolated values. Although 86% (80/93) offered contextual guidance (eg, readiness or recovery scores), many relied on proprietary algorithms that were not transparently described, limiting independent assessment of how these scores were derived and validated. Conclusions: Consumer HRV apps are widely available but vary considerably in how data are collected, processed, and contextualized. While many offer personalized trends and guidance, methodological transparency is often limited, particularly regarding the proprietary algorithms underlying the feedback scores.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».