MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414989254 · doi:10.2196/preprints.85488

Wearable-Derived Digital Biomarkers in Ageing Research: A Systematic Review (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W4414989254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filipe Barata, Dana Nacu, Robert Jakob, Sara Hägg, Elgar Fleisch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard ratioPhysical activityAgeingHealthy ageingCohort studySystematic reviewCohortHealthy agingProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Wearable devices provide continuous, objective measurement of health-related behaviors. Their derived digital biomarkers have potential for monitoring ageing trajectories, yet their predictive validity and role in ageing research remain underexplored. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable-derived digital biomarkers in capturing ageing processes by synthesizing evidence from prospective cohort studies linking behavioral metrics to mortality and ageing-related outcomes. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library for studies published between 2020 and 2025. Eligible studies included adults aged ≥40 years and reported empirical findings on wearable-derived digital biomarkers in ageing. A total of 711 records were screened using Covidence, with 43 studies meeting inclusion criteria, encompassing over 740,000 participants across six countries (United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Japan). Outcomes were synthesized across four domains: physical activity, sedentary behavior, sleep, and circadian rhythm. Hazard ratios (HRs) were standardized and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with Restricted Maximum Likelihood. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. RESULTS Higher levels of physical activity were consistently associated with reduced mortality. Pooled hazard ratios indicated strong protective effects, with step count (HR 0.69), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (HR 0.53), light physical activity (HR 0.55), and overall physical activity (HR 0.49) all linked to lower all-cause mortality. Sedentary behavior was associated with increased risk, with total sedentary time showing an HR of 1.48 for all-cause mortality and 1.51 for cardiovascular mortality. Sedentary patterns, particularly prolonged bouts, showed the most pronounced effects, with hazard ratios reaching up to 14.0 for the highest-risk groups. Sleep duration followed a U-shaped pattern, with both short (<6 hours) and long (>8 hours) sleep associated with higher mortality risk. Greater sleep regularity, as measured by the Sleep Regularity Index, demonstrated protective associations (HR 0.7). Circadian rhythm alterations were generally associated with increased mortality risk, particularly when rhythmicity was diminished, while more robust rhythms (e.g., higher amplitude and earlier rest-activity timing) demonstrated protective associations, though evidence remains limited and heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS Wearable-derived digital biomarkers, particularly those related to physical activity and sedentary behavior, are strong predictors of longevity. Sleep and circadian rhythm measures provide complementary prognostic information, with consistent sleep timing and robust 24-h activity rhythms conferring protective effects. Standardization of device protocols, multimodal sensor integration, and inclusion of diverse populations are needed to translate these findings into scalable interventions for healthy ageing.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207