Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33907628›Full record

ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2021

Predicting lying, sitting, walking and running using Apple Watch and Fitbit data.

Daniel Fuller, Javad Rahimipour Anaraki, Bongai Simango, Machel Rayner, Faramarz Dorani, Arastoo Bozorgi, Hui Luan, Fabien A Basset

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Seven Things to Know About Exercise Classification With Inertial Sensing Wearables.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daniel FullerSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2015-2955
Javad Rahimipour AnarakiInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bongai SimangoSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Machel RaynerSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Faramarz DoraniDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Arastoo BozorgiDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.
Hui LuanDepartment of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.
Fabien A BassetSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study's objective was to examine whether commercial wearable devices could accurately predict lying, sitting and varying intensities of walking and running.

methodsWe recruited a convenience sample of 49 participants (23 men and 26 women) to wear three devices, an Apple Watch Series 2, a Fitbit Charge HR2 and iPhone 6S. Participants completed a 65 min protocol consisting of 40 min of total treadmill time and 25 min of sitting or lying time. The study's outcome variables were six movement types: lying, sitting, walking self-paced and walking/running at 3 metabolic equivalents of task (METs), 5 METs and 7 METs. All analyses were conducted at the minute level with heart rate, steps, distance and calories from Apple Watch and Fitbit. These included three different machine learning models: support vector machines, Random Forest and Rotation forest.

resultsOur dataset included 3656 and 2608 min of Apple Watch and Fitbit data, respectively. Rotation Forest models had the highest classification accuracies for Apple Watch at 82.6%, and Random Forest models had the highest accuracy for Fitbit at 90.8%. Classification accuracies for Apple Watch data ranged from 72.6% for sitting to 89.0% for 7 METs. For Fitbit, accuracies varied between 86.2% for sitting to 92.6% for 7 METs.

conclusionThis preliminary study demonstrated that data from commercial wearable devices could predict movement types with reasonable accuracy. More research is needed, but these methods are a proof of concept for movement type classification at the population level using commercial wearable device data.

Indexed as

exercise physiologyexerciseshealth promotionmeasurementphysical activity

Identifiers

PMID33907628
PMCPMC8039266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.