Corey Gaskin
In 2010, Gary Wolf, then editor of Wired magazine, He gave a TED talk. In Cannes “The Quantified SelfIt was about what he called a “new craze” among tech enthusiasts: These early adopters were using gadgets to monitor everything from physiological data to moods and even how many diapers their children had used.
Wolf acknowledged that these people were anomalies, tech geeks fascinated by data, but their behavior has since seeped into mainstream culture.
From smartwatches that track steps and heart rate to fitness bands that record sleep patterns and calories burned, these gadgets are now ubiquitous, and their popularity is emblematic of our modern obsession with quantification: if it’s not tracking, it’s meaningless.
at least Half the people People in the room are likely to be wearing devices such as fitness trackers. Quantifying an aspect Wearables are becoming more prevalent in people’s lives. On a page that reminds me The mobile phone boom of the late 2000s.
But the quantified self-measurement movement is still grappling with a key question: can wearable devices really measure what they claim to?
My colleagues Maximus Baldwin, Alison Keough, Brian Caulfield and Rob Argent recently We have published a comprehensive review (Systematic review of systematic reviews) Examines the scientific literature on whether consumer wearable devices can accurately measure metrics such as heart rate, aerobic capacity, energy expenditure, sleep, and steps.
On the surface, our results were very positive. Although there is some margin of error, the wearable device can measure heart rate with an error rate of plus or minus 3 percent depending on factors such as skin color, intensity of exercise, and type of activity. It can also accurately measure heart rate variability, with good sensitivity and specificity for detecting arrhythmias, which are a problem with a person’s heart rate.
What’s more, they can accurately estimate cardiorespiratory fitness – how well your circulatory and respiratory systems deliver oxygen to your muscles during physical activity – which can be quantified by something called VO2.2Your max is a measure of how much oxygen your body uses during exercise.
A wearable’s ability to measure this accurately improves if predictions are generated during exercise (rather than at rest). In the area of physical activity, wearables typically underestimate steps by about 9 percent.
A challenging endeavor
However, when it came to energy expenditure (the number of calories burned during exercise), the variance was larger, with the margin of error ranging from minus 21.27 percent to 14.76 percent, depending on the device used and the activity performed.
The results weren’t much better when it came to sleep. Wearables tend to overestimate total sleep time and sleep efficiency, typically by more than 10%, and tend to underestimate sleep onset latency (the time it takes to fall asleep) and the duration of wakefulness after falling asleep. When compared to polysomnography, the gold standard used in sleep studies, errors ranged from 12% to 180%.
Ultimately, despite the promising capabilities of wearables, research in this field proved to be extremely difficult to conduct and integrate. One of the hurdles we encountered was the lack of consistency in the methodologies adopted by different research groups when validating specific devices.
This lack of standardization leads to conflicting results and makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions about the accuracy of a device. To take a typical example from our research, one study evaluates heart rate accuracy during high-intensity interval training while another focuses on sedentary activities, resulting in discrepancies that cannot be easily reconciled.
Other issues include differences in sample size, participant demographics, and experimental conditions, all of which add complexity to the interpretation of findings.
What does that mean for me?
Perhaps most importantly, these issues are exacerbated by the rapid pace at which new wearable devices are released. Most companies have annual release cycles that make it difficult for us and other researchers to keep up. Timelines for planning a study, obtaining ethical approval, recruiting and testing participants, analysing results and publishing can often exceed 12 months.
By the time a study is published, it is highly likely that the devices studied are already outdated and have been replaced by newer models that may have different specifications and performance characteristics. This is demonstrated by the following findings: Less than 5% of consumer wearables Products released to date have been validated for the range of physiological signals they are intended to measure.
What do our results mean for you? As wearable technology continues to permeate multiple aspects of health and lifestyle, it’s important to approach manufacturers’ claims with a healthy skepticism. Research gaps, inconsistent methodologies, and the rapid pace of new device releases highlight the need for a more formalized and standardized approach to device validation.
The goal here is to foster collaborative synergy between formal certification bodies, academic research consortia, popular media influencers and industry to expand the depth and scope of evaluation of wearable technologies.
Efforts to establish this are already underway. A collaborative network This will foster richer, more multifaceted conversations that resonate with a wider range of stakeholders, ensuring that wearables are not just innovative gadgets, but trusted tools for health and wellness.
Caleb Doherty He is an assistant professor in the School of Public Health, Physical Therapy and Sports Science. University of DublinThis article is conversation Published under a Creative Commons license. Original article.
