Measuring resting heart rate during daily life using wearable technology: Examining the impact of behavioral context and methodological criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Advances in the collection of high-quality, continuous electrocardiography (ECG) data via wearable technology have the potential to transform heart rate (HR) measurement in daily life. This study aimed to characterize the impact of methodological criteria and behavioral context on estimates of resting heart rate (RHR) to guide recommendations for a standardized approach to measure daily life RHR. Methods Ten adults (9 female, 61 ± 12 years) wore a chest-mounted ECG device and wrist and ankle movement sensors continuously for 7–10 days. Following signal quality screening and beat-to-beat calculations, HR was analyzed using rolling averages of 15-, 30-, and 60-s windows within periods of device-detected sedentary behavior and sleep. ECG data during sedentary and sleep were compared for differences in: (1) RHR, (2) between-day consistency of daily RHR, and (3) HR median and range. Results During sedentary and sleep, respectively, there was no difference in RHR (56 ± 7 vs. 54 ± 7 bpm, p = 0.055) or in between-day consistency of RHR (coefficient of variation: 6 ± 3% vs. 5 ± 3%, p = 0.12; maximum between-day range of RHR=14 bpm). However, the median HR (71 ± 6 vs. 62 ± 7 bpm, p = 0.001) and HR range (35 ± 6 vs. 23 ± 7 bpm, p < 0.01) were significantly greater during sedentary versus sleep. Conclusions Behavioral context and method of analysis impact ECG-based HR measures at rest. This study recommends a novel wearable-based method for measuring daily life RHR that maximizes use of available data and confronts variability that exists with extended monitoring. Use of a standard method for measuring daily life RHR may advance the use of HR to inform clinical and/or personal health decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".