Validation of a Wearable Sensor Prototype for Measuring Heart Rate to Prescribe Physical Activity: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Wearable sensors are rapidly evolving, particularly in health care, due to their ability to facilitate continuous or on-demand physiological monitoring. Objective This study aimed to design and validate a wearable sensor prototype incorporating photoplethysmography (PPG) and long-range wide area network technology for heart rate (HR) measurement during a functional test. Methods We conducted a transversal exploratory study involving 20 healthy participants aged between 20 and 30 years without contraindications for physical exercise. Initially, our laboratory developed a pulse wearable sensor prototype for HR monitoring. Following this, the participants were instructed to perform the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test while wearing the Polar H10 HR chest strap sensor (the reference for HR measurement) and the wearable sensor. This test allowed for real-time comparison of HR responses between the 2 devices. Agreement between these measurements was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3.1) and Lin concordance correlation coefficient. The mean absolute percentage error was calculated to evaluate reliability or validity. Cohen d was used to calculate the agreement’s effect size. Results The mean differences between the Polar H10 and the wearable sensor during the test were –2.6 (95% CI –3.5 to –1.8) for rest HR, –4.1 (95% CI –5.3 to –3) for maximum HR, –2.4 (95% CI –3.5 to –1.4) for mean test HR, and –2.5 (95% CI –3.6 to –1.5) for mean recovery HR. The mean absolute percentage errors were –3% for rest HR, –2.2% for maximum HR, –1.8% for mean test HR, and –1.6% for recovery HR. Excellent agreement was observed between the Polar H10 and the wearable sensor for rest HR (ICC3.1=0.96), mean test HR (ICC3.1=0.92), and mean recovery HR (ICC3.1=0.96). The agreement for maximum HR (ICC3.1=0.78) was considered good. By the Lin concordance correlation coefficient, the agreement was found to be substantial for rest HR (rc=0.96) and recovery HR (rc=0.96), moderate for mean test HR (rc=0.92), and poor for maximum HR (rc=0.78). The power of agreement between the Polar H10 and the wearable sensor prototype was large for baseline HR (Cohen d=0.97), maximum HR (Cohen d=1.18), and mean recovery HR (Cohen d=0.8) and medium for mean test HR (Cohen d= 0.76). Conclusions The pulse-wearable sensor prototype tested in this study proves to be a valid tool for monitoring HR at rest, during functional tests, and during recovery compared with the Polar H10 reference device used in the laboratory setting.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".