Cross-evaluation of wearable data for use in Parkinson’s disease research: a free-living observational study on Empatica E4, Fitbit Sense, and Oura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Established assessment scales used for Parkinson's disease (PD) have several limitations in tracking symptom progression and fluctuation. Both research and commercial-grade wearables show potential in improving these assessments. However, it is not known whether pervasive and affordable devices can deliver reliable data, suitable for designing open-source unobtrusive around-the-clock assessments. Our aim is to investigate the usefulness of the research-grade wristband Empatica E4, commercial-grade smartwatch Fitbit Sense, and the Oura ring, for PD research. METHOD: The study included participants with PD (N = 15) and neurologically healthy controls (N = 16). Data were collected using established assessment scales (Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire, Hoehn and Yahr Stage), self-reported diary (activities, symptoms, sleep, medication times), and 2-week digital data from the three devices collected simultaneously. The analyses comprised three steps: preparation (device characteristics assessment, data extraction and preprocessing), processing (data structuring and visualization, cross-correlation analysis, diary comparison, uptime calculation), and evaluation (usability, availability, statistical analyses). RESULTS: We found large variation in data characteristics and unsatisfactory cross-correlation. Due to output incongruences, only heart rate and movement could be assessed across devices. Empatica E4 and Fitbit Sense outperformed Oura in reflecting self-reported activities. Results show a weak output correlation and significant differences. The uptime was good, but Oura did not record heart rate and movement concomitantly. We also found variation in terms of access to raw data, sampling rate and level of device-native processing, ease of use, retrieval of data, and design. We graded the system usability of Fitbit Sense as good, Empatica E4 as poor, with Oura in the middle. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we identified a set of characteristics necessary for PD research: ease of handling, cleaning, data retrieval, access to raw data, score calculation transparency, long battery life, sufficient storage, higher sampling frequencies, software and hardware reliability, transparency. The three analyzed devices are not interchangeable and, based on data features, none were deemed optimal for PD research, but they all have the potential to provide suitable specifications in future iterations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".