Data Quality Degradation on Prediction Models Generated From Continuous Activity and Heart Rate Monitoring: Exploratory Analysis Using Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data accuracy is often cited as a reason for caution in the integration of physiological data obtained from consumer-oriented wearable devices in care management pathways. The effect of decreasing accuracy on predictive models generated from these data has not been previously investigated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to simulate the effect of data degradation on the reliability of prediction models generated from those data and thus determine the extent to which lower device accuracy might or might not limit their use in clinical settings. METHODS: Using the Multilevel Monitoring of Activity and Sleep in Healthy People data set, which includes continuous free-living step count and heart rate data from 21 healthy volunteers, we trained a random forest model to predict cardiac competence. Model performance in 75 perturbed data sets with increasing missingness, noisiness, bias, and a combination of all 3 perturbations was compared to model performance for the unperturbed data set. RESULTS: The unperturbed data set achieved a mean root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.079 (SD 0.001) in predicting cardiac competence index. For all types of perturbations, RMSE remained stable up to 20%-30% perturbation. Above this level, RMSE started increasing and reached the point at which the model was no longer predictive at 80% for noise, 50% for missingness, and 35% for the combination of all perturbations. Introducing systematic bias in the underlying data had no effect on RMSE. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, the performance of predictive models for cardiac competence generated from continuously acquired physiological data was relatively stable with declining quality of the source data. As such, lower accuracy of consumer-oriented wearable devices might not be an absolute contraindication for their use in clinical prediction models.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".