Accuracy, Usability, and Adherence of Smartwatches for Atrial Fibrillation Detection in Older Adults After Stroke: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cause of stroke, and timely diagnosis is critical for secondary prevention. Little is known about smartwatches for AF detection among stroke survivors. We aimed to examine accuracy, usability, and adherence to a smartwatch-based AF monitoring system designed by older stroke survivors and their caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the feasibility of smartwatches for AF detection in older stroke survivors. METHODS: Pulsewatch is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which stroke survivors received either a smartwatch-smartphone dyad for AF detection (Pulsewatch system) plus an electrocardiogram patch or the patch alone for 14 days to assess the accuracy and usability of the system (phase 1). Participants were subsequently rerandomized to potentially 30 additional days of system use to examine adherence to watch wear (phase 2). Participants were aged 50 years or older, had survived an ischemic stroke, and had no major contraindications to oral anticoagulants. The accuracy for AF detection was determined by comparing it to cardiologist-overread electrocardiogram patch, and the usability was assessed with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Adherence was operationalized as daily watch wear time over the 30-day monitoring period. RESULTS: A total of 120 participants were enrolled (mean age 65 years; 50/120, 41% female; 106/120, 88% White). The Pulsewatch system demonstrated 92.9% (95% CI 85.3%-97.4%) accuracy for AF detection. Mean usability score was 65 out of 100, and on average, participants wore the watch for 21.2 (SD 8.3) of the 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that a smartwatch system designed by and for stroke survivors is a viable option for long-term arrhythmia detection among older adults at risk for AF, though it may benefit from strategies to enhance adherence to watch wear. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03761394; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03761394. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1016/j.cvdhj.2021.07.002.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".