Estimating Maximal Oxygen Uptake From Daily Activity Data Measured by a Watch-Type Fitness Tracker: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), an important index of physical fitness, is the ability to inhale and provide oxygen to the exercising muscle. However, despite its importance, the current gold standard for measuring CRF is impractical, requiring maximal exercise from the participants. Objective: This study aimed to develop a convenient and practical estimation model for CRF using data collected from daily life with a wristwatch-type device. Methods: A total of 191 subjects, aged 20 to 65 years, participated in this study. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), a standard measure of CRF, was measured with a maximal exercise test. Heart rate (HR) and physical activity data were collected using a commercial wristwatch-type fitness tracker (Fitbit; Fitbit Charge; Fitbit) for 3 consecutive days. Maximal activity energy expenditure (aEEmax) and slope between HR and physical activity were calculated using a linear regression. A VO2 max estimation model was built using multiple linear regression with data on age, sex, height, percent body fat, aEEmax, and the slope. The result was validated with 2 different cross-validation methods. Results: aEEmax showed a moderate correlation with VO2 max (r=0.50). The correlation coefficient for the multiple linear regression model was 0.81, and the SE of estimate (SEE) was 3.518 mL/kg/min. The regression model was cross-validated through the predicted residual error sum of square (PRESS). The PRESS correlation coefficient was 0.79, and the PRESS SEE was 3.667 mL/kg/min. The model was further validated by dividing it into different subgroups and calculating the constant error (CE) where a low CE showed that the model does not significantly overestimate or underestimate VO2 max. Conclusions: This study proposes a CRF estimation method using data collected by a wristwatch-type fitness tracker without any specific protocol for a wide range of the population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".