Assessing the Accuracy of Smartwatch-Based Estimation of Maximum Oxygen Uptake Using the Apple Watch Series 7: Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Determining maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is essential for evaluating cardiorespiratory fitness. While laboratory-based testing is considered the gold standard, sports watches or fitness trackers offer a convenient alternative. However, despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation for VO2max estimation outside the laboratory setting. Objective This study aims to compare the Apple Watch Series 7’s performance against the gold standard in VO2max estimation and Apple’s validation findings. Methods A total of 19 participants (7 female and 12 male), aged 18 to 63 (mean 28.42, SD 11.43) years were included in the validation study. VO2max for all participants was determined in a controlled laboratory environment using a metabolic gas analyzer. Thereby, they completed a graded exercise test on a cycle ergometer until reaching subjective exhaustion. This value was then compared with the estimated VO2max value from the Apple Watch, which was calculated after wearing the watch for at least 2 consecutive days and measured directly after an outdoor running test. Results The measured VO2max (mean 45.88, SD 9.42 mL/kg/minute) in the laboratory setting was significantly higher than the predicted VO2max (mean 41.37, SD 6.5 mL/kg/minute) from the Apple Watch (t18=2.51; P=.01) with a medium effect size (Hedges g=0.53). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a good overall agreement between both measurements. However, the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1)=0.47 (95% CI 0.06-0.75) indicated poor reliability. The mean absolute percentage error between the predicted and the actual VO2max was 15.79%, while the root mean square error was 8.85 mL/kg/minute. The analysis further revealed higher accuracy when focusing on participants with good fitness levels (mean absolute percentage error=14.59%; root-mean-square error=7.22 ml/kg/minute; ICC(2,1)=0.60 95% CI 0.09-0.87). Conclusions Similar to other smartwatches, the Apple Watch also overestimates or underestimates the VO2max in individuals with poor or excellent fitness levels, respectively. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of the Apple Watch’s VO2max estimation is crucial for determining its suitability as an alternative to laboratory testing. The findings of this study will apprise researchers, physical training professionals, and end users of wearable technology, thereby enhancing the knowledge base and practical application of such devices in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness parameters.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".