Predicting Chronic Stress among Healthy Females Using Daily-Life Physiological and Lifestyle Features from Wearable Sensors

Abstract

Background Chronic stress is a highly prevalent condition that may stem from different sources and can substantially impact physiology and behavior, potentially leading to impaired mental and physical health. Multiple physiological and behavioral lifestyle features can now be recorded unobtrusively in daily-life using wearable sensors. The aim of the current study was to identify a distinct set of physiological and behavioral lifestyle features that are associated with elevated levels of chronic stress across different stress sources. Methods For that, 140 healthy female participants completed the Trier inventory for chronic stress (TICS) before wearing the Fitbit Charge3 sensor for seven consecutive days while maintaining their daily routine. Physiological and lifestyle features that were extracted from sensor data, alongside demographic features, were used to predict high versus low chronic stress with support vector machine classifiers, applying out-of-sample model testing. Results The model achieved 79% classification accuracy for chronic stress from a social tension source. A mixture of physiological (resting heart-rate, heart-rate circadian characteristics), lifestyle (steps count, sleep onset and sleep regularity) and non-sensor demographic features (smoking status) contributed to this classification. Conclusion As wearable technologies continue to rapidly evolve, integration of daily-life indicators could improve our understanding of chronic stress and its impact of physiology and behavior.

Chronic social stress blunts core body temperature and molecular rhythms of Rbm3 and Cirbp in mouse lateral habenula

“…Our results align with clinical findings that patients with depression exhibit blunted diurnal rhythms where nighttime temperature is abnormally high (when people are usually least active), while daytime temperature is largely unaffected [ 15 ]. Preliminary studies in humans suggest that circadian temperature profile predicts stress vulnerability [ 40 – 42 ]. However, since there were no differences at baseline in our study, we failed to model these results using CSDS.…”