Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors

Abstract

As wearable technologies are being increasingly used for clinical research and healthcare, it is critical to understand their accuracy and determine how measurement errors may affect research conclusions and impact healthcare decision-making. Accuracy of wearable technologies has been a hotly debated topic in both the research and popular science literature. Currently, wearable technology companies are responsible for assessing and reporting the accuracy of their products, but little information about the evaluation method is made publicly available. Heart rate measurements from wearables are derived from photoplethysmography (PPG), an optical method for measuring changes in blood volume under the skin. Potential inaccuracies in PPG stem from three major areas, includes (1) diverse skin types, (2) motion artifacts, and (3) signal crossover. To date, no study has systematically explored the accuracy of wearables across the full range of skin tones. Here, we explored heart rate and PPG data from consumerand research-grade wearables under multiple circumstances to test whether and to what extent these inaccuracies exist. We saw no statistically significant difference in accuracy across skin tones, but we saw significant differences between devices, and between activity types, notably, that absolute error during activity was, on average, 30% higher than during rest. Our conclusions indicate that different wearables are all reasonably accurate at resting and prolonged elevated heart rate, but that differences exist between devices in responding to changes in activity. This has implications for researchers, clinicians, and consumers in drawing study conclusions, combining study results, and making health-related decisions using these devices.npj Digital Medicine (2020) 3:18 ; https://doi.

Evaluation of Wearable Electronics for Epilepsy: A Systematic Review

“…There was also a lack of detail regarding the performance of the devices themselves in terms of seizure detection and estimation of key parameters such as heart rate. In a recent study [45], researchers compared consumer-grade and research-grade heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) estimating wearables (including the Empatica E4 and two other HR sensing devices) and observed that "while the research-grade wearables are the only wearables that provide users with raw data that can be used to visualize PPG waveforms and calculate HRV, the HR measurements tended to be less accurate than consumer-grade wearables. This is especially important for researchers and clinicians to be aware of when choosing devices for clinical research and clinical decision support."…”

“…This is especially important for researchers and clinicians to be aware of when choosing devices for clinical research and clinical decision support." [45] This very difficult problem of achieving accurate and reliable continuous sensor data in nonsedentary scenarios is highly significant and worthy of more attention if researchers are to develop robust methods and make valid conclusions from acquired data.…”

Assessment and management of adults with asthma during the covid-19 pandemic

“…In some regions, oxygen saturation probe delivery services are being implemented, which may facilitate this. Heart rate can also be provided by the patient if they use conventional “wearable” technology, although, given the potential inaccuracies with different devices, the results should not be relied on 20. If time allows, inhaler technique can also be checked.…”

Digitally Enabled, Patient‐Centric Clinical Trials: Shifting the Drug Development Paradigm

“…72 Other examples of such efforts include smartphone motor-sensing for detection of early signs of Lyme disease 73, 74 and investigation of wearable devices for cardiac monitoring. 73,75,76 Merck & Co., Inc. (Kenilworth, NJ, USA) also conducted a study in collaboration with Koneksa Health that explored use of mobile health approaches to measure changes in heart rate and blood pressure, which found that mobile health approaches were comparable to standard in-clinic measures and Accepted Article sufficiently sensitive to detect treatment differences, demonstrating potential to capture rich hemodynamic data in early clinical trials to aid decision-making. 77 Digital biomarkers may be particularly useful in disease areas that are hindered by a lack of validated biomarkers to objectively measure disease onset and progression, such as neurodegenerative diseases.…”