ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Recognition of eating episodes via commercial smartwatch sensors analysis.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smartwatches with movement sensors have emerged as promising tools for monitoring dietary behavior. This study uses commercial smartwatch sensor data, namely tri-axial acceleration together with device-derived orientation (pitch and roll) and power features, to detect eating episodes, with rigorous subject-independent validation. Twenty healthy participants were equipped with smartwatches and video recorded during four meals under semi-naturalistic settings. Raw sensor data was transformed using time-windowed features. Multiple machine learning and deep learning methods were evaluated using Leave-One-Subject-Out (LOSO) cross-validation. Over 26,000 Information Units from 19 subjects were analyzed. Using only motion-derived predictors, XGBoost with hyperparameter tuning achieved the best balanced accuracy (0.639 [95% CI 0.607, 0.668]) and AUC (0.699 [0.653, 0.743]); the full feature set that additionally used experimental-context variables (meal, food and menu information) gave near-identical performance, and paired cluster-bootstrap comparisons indicated that Logistic Regression remained close on balanced accuracy. A Transformer encoder achieved the numerically highest sensitivity (0.691 [0.637, 0.735]) at a significantly lower specificity (0.504 [0.456, 0.549]); under nested threshold selection and multiplicity-adjusted comparison the sensitivity advantage over tuned XGBoost was not statistically significant. We demonstrate that eating detection from smartwatch sensors remains challenging when evaluated with proper subject-independent validation. The gap between within-subject and between-subject performance reflects high inter-individual variability in eating gestures, a key limitation for real-world deployment.
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.