Measuring Heart Rate Variability in Free-Living Conditions Using Consumer-Grade Photoplethysmography: Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Heart rate variability (HRV) is used to assess cardiac health and autonomic nervous system capabilities. With the growing popularity of commercially available wearable technologies, the opportunity to unobtrusively measure HRV via photoplethysmography (PPG) is an attractive alternative to electrocardiogram (ECG), which serves as the gold standard. PPG measures blood flow within the vasculature using color intensity. However, PPG does not directly measure HRV; it measures pulse rate variability (PRV). Previous studies comparing consumer-grade PRV with HRV have demonstrated mixed results in short durations of activity under controlled conditions. Further research is required to determine the efficacy of PRV to estimate HRV under free-living conditions. Objective This study aims to compare PRV estimates obtained from a consumer-grade PPG sensor with HRV measurements from a portable ECG during unsupervised free-living conditions, including sleep, and examine factors influencing estimation, including measurement conditions and simple editing methods to limit motion artifacts. Methods A total of 10 healthy adults were recruited. Data from a Microsoft Band 2 and a Shimmer3 ECG unit were recorded simultaneously using a smartphone. Participants wore the devices for >90 min during typical day-to-day activities and while sleeping. After filtering, ECG data were processed using a combination of discrete wavelet transforms and peak-finding methods to identify R-R intervals. P-P intervals were edited for deletion using methods based on outlier detection and by removing sections affected by motion artifacts. Common HRV metrics were compared, including mean N-N, SD of N-N intervals, percentage of subsequent differences >50 ms (pNN50), root mean square of successive differences, low-frequency power (LF), and high-frequency power. Validity was assessed using root mean square error (RMSE) and Pearson correlation coefficient (R2). Results Data sets for 10 days and 9 corresponding nights were acquired. The mean RMSE was 182 ms (SD 48) during the day and 158 ms (SD 67) at night. R2 ranged from 0.00 to 0.66, with 2 of 19 (2 nights) trials considered moderate, 7 of 19 (2 days, 5 nights) fair, and 10 of 19 (8 days, 2 nights) poor. Deleting sections thought to be affected by motion artifacts had a minimal impact on the accuracy of PRV measures. Significant HRV and PRV differences were found for LF during the day and R-R, SDNN, pNN50, and LF at night. For 8 of the 9 matched day and night data sets, R2 values were higher at night (P=.08). P-P intervals were less sensitive to rapid R-R interval changes. Conclusions Owing to overall poor concurrent validity and inconsistency among participant data, PRV was found to be a poor surrogate for HRV under free-living conditions. These findings suggest that free-living HRV measurements would benefit from examining alternate sensing methods, such as multiwavelength PPG and wearable ECG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".