Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40695999›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Tackling inter-subject variability in smartwatch data using factorization models.

Arman Naseri, David M J Tax, Ivo van der Bilt, Marcel Reinders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Arman NaseriDelft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. a.naserijahfari@hagaziekenhuis.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5676-6596
David M J TaxDelft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5153-9087
Ivo van der BiltHaga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1151-2461
Marcel ReindersDelft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1148-1562

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smartwatches enable longitudinal and continuous data acquisition. This has the potential to remotely monitor (changes) of the health of users. However, differences among subjects (inter-subject variability) limit a model to generalize to unseen subjects. This study focused on binary classification tasks using heart rate and step counter from smartwatches, including night/day and inactive/active classification, as well as sleep and SpO2-related (oxygen saturation) tasks. To address inter-subject variability, we explored different transforming and normalization regimes for time series including per-subject and population-based strategies. We propose a modified factorized autoencoder, which separates the data into two latent spaces capturing class-specific and subject-specific information. Our proposed generalized factorized autoencoder and triplet factorized autoencoder improved classification accuracy over the baseline from 74.8 (± 10.5) to 83.1 (± 5.1) and 83.4 (± 5.3), respectively, for night/day classification, gains for inactive/active classification were modest, improving from 84.3 (± 9.4) to 86.9 (± 4.4) and 86.6 (± 4.3), respectively. Our study highlights challenges of handling inter-subject variability in smartwatch data and how factorization models can be used to enable more robust and personalized health monitoring solutions for diverse populations.

Indexed as

Wearable Electronic DevicesAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicOxygen SaturationSleepInter-subject variabilityMachine learningNeural networksSmartwatch

Identifiers

PMID40695999
PMCPMC12284151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.