MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200487438 · doi:10.1080/17461391.2021.2023656

Wrist‐worn devices for the measurement of heart rate and energy expenditure: A validation study for the Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense

2021· article· en· W4200487438 on OpenAlexafffund
Guy Hajj‐Boutros, Marie-Anne Landry-Duval, Alain Steve Comtois, Gilles Gouspillou, Antony D. Karelis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Sport Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsEnergy expenditureHeart rateHeart rate monitorSittingPhysical activityWristPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBlood pressureSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of 3 recently released wrist‐worn devices (Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense) for heart rate and energy expenditure during various activities. The study population consisted of 60 young healthy individuals (30 men and 30 women; age: 24.9 ± 3.0 years, BMI: 23.1 ± 2.7 kg/m2). Heart rate and energy expenditure were measured using the Polar H10 and Metamax 3B, respectively (reference measures) as well as with the 3 wrist‐worn devices during 5 different activities (sitting, walking, running, resistance exercises and cycling). The Apple Watch 6 displayed the highest level of accuracy for heart rate measurement with a coefficient of variation (CV) (%) of less than 5% for all 5 activities, whereas the Polar Vantage V and the Fitbit Sense presented various degrees of accuracy (from high to poor accuracy) dependent on the activity (CVs between 2.44‐8.80% and 4.14‐10.76%, respectively). As for energy expenditure, all 3 devices displayed poor accuracy for all 5 physical activities (CVs between 14.68‐24.85% for Apple Watch 6, 16.54‐25.78% for Polar Vantage V and 13.44‐29.66% for Fitbit Sense). Results of the present study indicate that the Apple Watch 6 was the most accurate for measuring heart rate across all 5 activities, whereas variable levels of accuracy for heart rate measurement for the Polar Vantage V and the Fitbit Sense were observed depending on the activity. As for energy expenditure, all 3 devices showed poor accuracy during all activities. Highlights The Apple Watch 6 was the most accurate for measuring heart rate, whereas the Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense showed variable results dependent on the activity The Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense showed poor accuracy for energy expenditure during 5 different physical activities Healthcare care professionals, athletes/coaches and the general population may want to proceed with caution on the clinical utility of energy expenditure of these devices during the implementation of an exercise training or nutritional programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Sport ScienceSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207