Heart Rate Monitoring Among Breast Cancer Survivors: Quantitative Study of Device Agreement in a Community-Based Exercise Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Exercise intensity (eg, target heart rate [HR]) is a fundamental component of exercise prescription to elicit health benefits in cancer survivors. Despite the validity of chest-worn monitors, their feasibility in community and unsupervised exercise settings may be challenging. As wearable technology continues to improve, consumer-based wearable sensors may represent an accessible alternative to traditional monitoring, offering additional advantages. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between the Polar H10 chest monitor and Fitbit Inspire HR for HR measurement in breast cancer survivors enrolled in the intervention arm of a randomized, pilot exercise trial. Methods Participants included breast cancer survivors (N=14; aged 38-72 years) randomized to a 12-week aerobic exercise program. This program consisted of three 60-minute, moderate-intensity walking sessions per week, either in small groups or one-on-one, facilitated by a certified exercise physiologist and held at local community fitness centers. As originally designed, the exercise prescription included 36 supervised sessions at a fitness center. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of supervised sessions varied depending on whether participants enrolled before or after March 2020. During each exercise session, HR (in beats per minute) was concurrently measured via a Polar H10 chest monitor and a wrist-worn Fitbit Inspire HR at 5 stages: pre-exercise rest; midpoint of warm-up; midpoint of exercise session; midpoint of cool-down; and postexercise recovery. The exercise physiologist recorded the participant’s HR from each device at the midpoint of each stage. HR agreement between the Polar H10 and Fitbit Inspire HR was assessed using Lin concordance correlation coefficient (rc) with a 95% CI. Lin rc ranges from 0 to 1.00, with 0 indicating no concordance and 1.00 indicating perfect concordance. Relative error rates were calculated to examine differences across exercise session stages. Results Data were available for 200 supervised sessions across the sample (session per participant: mean 13.33, SD 13.7). By exercise session stage, agreement between the Polar H10 monitor and the Fitbit was highest during pre-exercise seated rest (rc=0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.81) and postexercise seated recovery (rc=0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.92), followed by the midpoint of exercise (rc=0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.70) and cool-down (rc=0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.74). The agreement was lowest during warm-up (rc=0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.49). Relative error rates ranged from –3.91% to 3.09% and were greatest during warm-up (relative error rate: mean –3.91, SD 11.92%). Conclusions The Fitbit overestimated HR during peak exercise intensity, posing risks for overexercising, which may not be safe for breast cancer survivors’ fitness levels. While the Fitbit Inspire HR may be used to estimate exercise HR, precautions are needed when considering participant safety and data interpretation. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03980626; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03980626?term=NCT03980626&rank=1
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".