ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Baseline normalization choices inflate classification performance in wearable health monitoring: quantification and mitigation strategies.
Article in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable health monitoring systems provide continuous physiological measurements with growing use in clinical and population health applications. Baseline normalization enables individual-specific calibration of physiological signals to account for inter-subject variability; however, systematic evaluation of how the temporal relationship between normalization windows and evaluation data influences reported classification performance remains limited. Using physiological anxiety detection as a case study, we investigate this methodological challenge with the PhysioNet Spider Fear dataset (52 participants, including measurements of heart activity, skin conductance, and respiration), comparing normalization approaches and three baseline selection strategies. While maintaining strict subject-independent partitions, we show that including the normalized baseline in the evaluation window (test-inclusive baseline normalization) produced accuracies of 89%-93%, compared with when the baseline window is excluded (test-exclusive baseline normalization), which yielded 77%-85%, a 3-13 percentage-point difference consistent across classifiers, window sizes, and class-balance conditions. Two test-exclusive strategies using physiologically distinct baseline states (rest vs. anxiety) performed equivalently, indicating that performance differences were driven by temporal overlap rather than baseline selection. Full-feature normalization improved balanced accuracy by 11%-18% relative to unnormalized features; however, after removing temporal overlap, performance did not differ between normalization approaches. Prolonged stimulus exposure was associated with a 4-7 percentage-point reduction in balanced accuracy, consistent with habituation effects. Increasing window duration from 10 s to 60 s was associated with higher balanced accuracy (72%-74% vs. 78%-79%), whereas data augmentation did not improve performance under moderate class imbalance. We recommend explicit reporting of baseline temporal boundaries to enable accurate performance comparisons across studies and reliable assessment of clinical applicability in wearable health monitoring.
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.