The Validity and Reliability of the Mi Band Wearable Device for Measuring Steps and Heart Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 13(4): 689-701, 2020. The study objectives were to 1) evaluate the criterion validity and reliability of the Mi Band 2 wearable activity monitor to measure steps during a six-minute walk test (6MWT), a treadmill walking test at various speed (1.28 km/h, 1.92 km/h, and 2.88 km/h) and a stair climbing test; 2) assess the validity and reliability of the monitor to measure heart rate during rest and exercise. Fourteen participants (females: n = 8; mean age ± SD: 23 ± 4.2) completed the study. The mean body mass index was 22 ± 3.6. The majority (~92%) of the Mi Band met the standard of 5% absolute percent error for measuring steps during the 6MWT. However, the Mi Band underestimated steps at slower walking speeds (< 2.88 km/h). Mi Band showed good internal consistency during the six-minute walk test and stairs climb (ICC: 0.83). The validity and reliability of the Mi Band to measure heart rate may not be suited for clinical or research use. The Mi Band significantly underestimated heart rate during exercise. Overall, caution is required when interpreting the steps recorded (at slower speeds) and heart rate measurements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".