MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407385710 · doi:10.2196/67110

Wrist-Worn and Arm-Worn Wearables for Monitoring Heart Rate During Sedentary and Light-to-Vigorous Physical Activities: Device Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4407385710 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Theresa Schweizer, Rahel Gilgen-Ammann

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintWearable computerSmartwatchWristPhysical activityGermanideWearable technologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMedicineEmbedded systemPhysicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Heart rate (HR) is a vital physiological parameter, serving as an indicator of homeostasis and a key metric for monitoring cardiovascular health and physiological responses. Wearable devices using photoplethysmography (PPG) technology provide noninvasive HR monitoring in real-life settings, but their performance may vary due to factors such as wearing position, blood flow, motion, and device updates. Therefore, ongoing validation of their accuracy and reliability across different activities is essential. objectives: This study aimed to assess the accuracy and reliability of the HR measurement from the PPG-based Polar Verity Sense and the Polar Vantage V2 devices across a range of physical activities and intensities as well as wearing positions (ie, upper arm, forearm, and both wrists). Methods: Sixteen healthy participants were recruited to participate in this study protocol, which involved 9 activities of varying intensities, ranging from lying down to high-intensity interval training, each repeated twice. The HR measurements from the Verity Sense and Vantage V2 were compared with the criterion measure Polar H10 electrocardiogram (ECG) chest strap. The data were processed to eliminate artifacts and outliers. Accuracy and reliability were assessed using multiple statistical methods, including systematic bias (mean of differences), mean absolute error (MAE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r), Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and within-subject coefficient of variation (WSCV). Results: All 16 participants (female=7; male=9; mean 27.4, SD 5.8 years) completed the study. The Verity Sense, worn on the upper arm, demonstrated excellent accuracy across most activities, with a systematic bias of -0.05 bpm, MAE of 1.43 bpm, MAPE of 1.35%, r=1.00, and CCC=1.00. It also demonstrated high reliability across all activities with a WSCV of 2.57% and no significant differences between the 2 sessions. The wrist-worn Vantage V2 demonstrated moderate accuracy with a slight overestimation compared with the ECG and considerable variation in accuracy depending on the activity. For the nondominant wrist, it demonstrated a systematic bias of 2.56 bpm, MAE of 6.41 bpm, MAPE 6.82%, r=0.93, and CCC=0.92. Reliability varied considerably, ranging from a WSCV of 3.64% during postexercise sitting to 23.03% during lying down. Conclusions: The Verity Sense was found to be highly accurate and reliable, outperforming many other wearable HR devices and establishing itself as a strong alternative to ECG-based chest straps, especially when worn on the upper arm. The Vantage V2 was found to have moderate accuracy, with performance highly dependent on activity type and intensity. While it exhibited greater variability and limitations at lower HR, it performed better at higher intensities and outperformed several wrist-worn devices from previous research, particularly during vigorous activities. These findings highlight the importance of device selection and wearing position to ensure the highest possible accuracy in the intended context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207