The Validity and Reliability of the Mi Band Wearable Device for Measuring Steps and Heart Rate
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it