Wearable Device Validity in Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate Across Age, Gender, and Body Mass Index: Data Analysis From a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper examined whether the criterion validity of step count (SC), energy expenditure (EE), and heart rate (HR) varied across studies depending on the average age, body mass index (BMI), and predominant gender of participants. METHODS: Data from 1536 studies examining the validity of various wearable devices were used. Separate multilevel regression models examined the associations among age, gender, and BMI with device criterion validity assessed using mean absolute percent error (MAPE) at the study level. RESULTS: MAPE values were reported in 970 studies for SC, 328 for EE, and 238 for HR, respectively. There were several significant differences in MAPE between age, gender, and BMI categories for SC, EE, and HR. SC MAPE was significantly different for older adults compared with adults. Compared with studies among normal-weight populations, MAPE was greater among studies with overweight samples for SC, HR, and EE. Comparing studies with more women than men, MAPE was significantly greater for EE and HR. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in the criterion validity of commercial wearable devices across studies of varying ages, BMIs, and genders. Few studies have examined differences in error between different age groups, particularly for EE and HR.
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 | 0.036 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".