MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414462354 · doi:10.2196/71213

Relationship Between Activity Tracker Metrics and the Physical Activity Index and Their Association With Cardiometabolic Phenotypes, Subclinical Atherosclerosis, and Cardiac Remodeling: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4414462354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weiting Huang, Mark Kei Fong Wong, Enver De Wei Loh, Tracy Koh, Alex Weixian Tan, Xiayan Shen, Onur Varli, Siew Ching Kong, Calvin Chin, Swee Yaw Tan, Jonathan Yap, E. Y. K. Ng, Khung Keong Yeo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityActivity trackerAssociation (psychology)Subclinical infectionActivity monitormHealthDemographicsSympathetic activityBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Consumer wearable technology quantifies physical activity; however, the association between these metrics and cardiometabolic health requires further elucidation. OBJECTIVE: This study identified latent factors derived from Fitbit heart rate metrics and their relationship with cross-sectional cardiovascular phenotypes. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included 457 participants from the SingHEART study, a multiethnic, population-based study of Asian individuals aged 21 to 69 years recruited in Singapore. Participants wore the Fitbit Charge HR for 7 days, and data on physical activity metrics, self-reported physical activity index (PAI), blood tests, coronary artery calcium scores, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging were collected. Exploratory factor analysis identified latent factors from Fitbit metrics, and multivariate regression analysis assessed associations with blood and cardiovascular imaging phenotypes. RESULTS: Higher levels of self-reported PAI were significantly associated with a higher number of calories burned (P=.008), number of steps and floors climbed, distance, number of activity calories, and number of very active minutes (P<.001). However, there was no association between PAI and other Fitbit metrics. Using exploratory factor analysis, we identified three latent factors measured by Fitbit metrics: (1) elevated metabolic equivalents of task (METs; calories burned per day, minutes per day spent fairly active in 3-6 METs and very active in ≥6 METs, and activity calories), (2) total activity (steps per day, distance in kilometers per day, and number of floors per day), and (3) others, all with a Cronbach α of >0.7. Higher total activity was associated with increased high-density lipoprotein levels (β=0.06; P<.001), decreased triglyceride levels (β=-0.10; P=.006), and lower BMI (β=-0.63; P<.001) after adjustment for age, gender, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and family history of heart disease. The interaction between total activity and elevated METs was associated with lower fasting glucose (β=-0.07; P=.004). Elevated METs were associated with higher log(coronary artery calcium+1) and higher BMI (P<.001). Total activity was significantly associated with higher indexed biventricular systolic (P=.01 for left and P=.006 for right) and diastolic volumes (P<.001) and higher indexed left ventricular mass (P=.005). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 3 groups of wearable metrics with distinct characteristics. While total activity had a significant relationship with self-reported PAI, most metrics of elevated METs did not. Total activity had a consistent and favorable association with lipid and glucose profiles and a dose-dependent association with cardiac remodeling. Elevated METs alone did not appear to have a significant association with favorable cardiovascular profiles. This study suggests that the total activity metrics are robust and dependable when interpreting an individual's activity levels, with construct validity according to self-reported PAI and a positive association with lipid and glucose profiles, and demonstrate dose-dependent associations with cardiac remodeling after adjustment for demographics and risk factors. Findings related to elevated METs may be due to the Hawthorne effect and require further studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→