ArticleScientific reports2025
Developing and comparing a new BMI inclusive energy expenditure algorithm on wrist-worn wearables.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consumer Smartwatch Technology in Health and Performance Research: Validity, Limitations, and Real-World Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical and translational science award hubs in learning health systems: development of the engine-drivetrain model.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating energy expenditure (EE) in real-world settings is crucial for studying human behavior and energy balance. Despite advances in wrist-worn inertial measurement units (IMU), actigraphy remains the most accepted measure for estimating EE, despite known Errors in accuracy, particularly in people with obesity. We developed an algorithm estimating EE from commercial smartwatch sensor data, and validated it against actigraphy-based energy estimates in people with obesity. In an in-lab study, 27 participants wore a Fossil Sport smartwatch and ActiGraph wGT3X+ while performing activities of varying intensities. Another 25 participants wore the smartwatch for 2 days in a free-living study. We built a machine learning model to estimate metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values/minute using smartwatch accelerometer and gyroscope data. Analysis included 2,189 minutes of in-lab and 14,045 minutes of free-living data. Compared to the metabolic cart, our model achieved lower root mean square error (0.28-0.32) across various sliding windows. In the free-living study, our algorithm's estimates fell within [Formula: see text] SD of the best actigraphy-based estimates for 95.03% of minutes. Our proposed method accurately estimated METs compared to 11 algorithms primarily validated in non-obese populations, suggesting that commercial wrist-worn devices can provide more inclusive and reliable EE measures using our algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.