Performance of a Wearable Ring in Controlled Hypoxia: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Over recent years, technological advances in wearables have allowed for continuous home monitoring of heart rate and oxygen saturation. These devices have primarily been used for sports and general wellness and may not be suitable for medical decision-making, especially in saturations below 90% and in patients with dark skin color. Wearable clinical-grade saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) monitoring can be of great value to patients with chronic diseases, enabling them and their clinicians to better manage their condition with reliable real-time and trend data. Objective This study aimed to determine the SpO2 accuracy of a wearable ring pulse oximeter compared with arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) in a controlled hypoxia study based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 80601-2-61:2019 standard over the range of 70%-100% SaO2 in volunteers with a broad range of skin color (Fitzpatrick I to VI) during nonmotion conditions. In parallel, accuracy was compared with a calibrated clinical-grade reference pulse oximeter (Masimo Radical-7). Acceptable medical device accuracy was defined as a maximum of 4% root mean square error (RMSE) per the ISO 80601-2-61 standard and a maximum of 3.5% RMSE per the US Food and Drug Administration guidance. Methods We performed a single-center, blinded hypoxia study of the test device in 11 healthy volunteers at the Hypoxia Research Laboratory, University of California at San Francisco, under the direction of Philip Bickler, MD, PhD, and John Feiner, MD. Each volunteer was connected to a breathing apparatus for the administration of a hypoxic gas mixture. To facilitate frequent blood gas sampling, a radial arterial cannula was placed on either wrist of each participant. One test device was placed on the index finger and another test device was placed on the fingertip. SaO2 analysis was performed using an ABL-90 multi-wavelength oximeter. Results For the 11 participants included in the analysis, there were 236, 258, and 313 SaO2-SpO2 data pairs for the test device placed on the finger, the test device placed on the fingertip, and the reference device, respectively. The RMSE of the test device for all participants was 2.1% for either finger or fingertip placement, while the Masimo Radical-7 reference pulse oximeter RMSE was 2.8%, exceeding the standard (4% or less) and the Food and Drug Administration guidance (3.5% or less). Accuracy of SaO2-SpO2 paired data from the 4 participants with dark skin in the study was separately analyzed for both test device placements and the reference device. The test and reference devices exceeded the minimum accuracy requirements for a medical device with RMSE at 1.8% (finger) and 1.6% (fingertip) and for the reference device at 2.9%. Conclusions The wearable ring meets an acceptable standard of accuracy for clinical-grade SpO2 under nonmotion conditions without regard to skin color. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05920278; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05920278
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".