ArticleJournal of biological rhythms2026
Circadian Phase Estimation From Ambulatory Wearables With Particle Filtering: Accuracy Depends on Initialization, Recording Duration, and Light Exposure.
Article in Journal of biological rhythms, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
While current mathematical models of human circadian rhythms accurately predict circadian phase responses to light in controlled laboratory experiments, they show reduced performance in the real world, especially among shift workers with irregular schedules and downstream erratic light diets. The source of the discrepancy between in-laboratory and ambulatory performance remains unclear. We evaluate the impact of initialization strategy, recording duration, and light exposure characteristics on model performance using wearable data from both individuals on regular schedules and shift workers. We implement a probabilistic initialization framework to account for unknown starting phase and assess model performance in prediction of phase from light input data against an in-lab measure of circadian phase (dim light melatonin onset). In participants with regular schedules, accuracy improved with longer recordings, while shift workers show no accuracy gains when having more nights of data. Light exposure patterns differed significantly between groups, with brighter and more regular day-to-day light exposure being weakly to moderately associated with improved model estimates, whereas fragmented patterns of light exposure increased uncertainty. These findings suggest that current models require adaptation, particularly in light sensitivity, to generalize to free-living, irregular conditions and support robust, scalable circadian tracking in real-world populations.
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.