Polona Caserman, Sungsoo Yum, Stefan Göbel, Andreas Reif, Silke Matura
{"title":"使用 Apple Watch Series 7 评估基于智能手表的最大摄氧量估算的准确性:验证研究。","authors":"Polona Caserman, Sungsoo Yum, Stefan Göbel, Andreas Reif, Silke Matura","doi":"10.2196/59459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining maximum oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2</sub>max) is essential for evaluating cardiorespiratory fitness. While laboratory-based testing is considered the gold standard, sports watches or fitness trackers offer a convenient alternative. However, despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation for VO<sub>2</sub>max estimation outside the laboratory setting.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the Apple Watch Series 7's performance against the gold standard in VO<sub>2</sub>max estimation and Apple's validation findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 19 participants (7 female and 12 male), aged 18 to 63 (mean 28.42, SD 11.43) years were included in the validation study. VO<sub>2</sub>max for all participants was determined in a controlled laboratory environment using a metabolic gas analyzer. Thereby, they completed a graded exercise test on a cycle ergometer until reaching subjective exhaustion. This value was then compared with the estimated VO<sub>2</sub>max value from the Apple Watch, which was calculated after wearing the watch for at least 2 consecutive days and measured directly after an outdoor running test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The measured VO<sub>2</sub>max (mean 45.88, SD 9.42 mL/kg/minute) in the laboratory setting was significantly higher than the predicted VO<sub>2</sub>max (mean 41.37, SD 6.5 mL/kg/minute) from the Apple Watch (t<sub>18</sub>=2.51; P=.01) with a medium effect size (Hedges g=0.53). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a good overall agreement between both measurements. However, the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1)=0.47 (95% CI 0.06-0.75) indicated poor reliability. The mean absolute percentage error between the predicted and the actual VO<sub>2</sub>max was 15.79%, while the root mean square error was 8.85 mL/kg/minute. The analysis further revealed higher accuracy when focusing on participants with good fitness levels (mean absolute percentage error=14.59%; root-mean-square error=7.22 ml/kg/minute; ICC(2,1)=0.60 95% CI 0.09-0.87).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Similar to other smartwatches, the Apple Watch also overestimates or underestimates the VO<sub>2</sub>max in individuals with poor or excellent fitness levels, respectively. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of the Apple Watch's VO<sub>2</sub>max estimation is crucial for determining its suitability as an alternative to laboratory testing. The findings of this study will apprise researchers, physical training professionals, and end users of wearable technology, thereby enhancing the knowledge base and practical application of such devices in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness parameters.</p>","PeriodicalId":87288,"journal":{"name":"JMIR biomedical engineering","volume":"9 ","pages":"e59459"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325102/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Accuracy of Smartwatch-Based Estimation of Maximum Oxygen Uptake Using the Apple Watch Series 7: Validation Study.\",\"authors\":\"Polona Caserman, Sungsoo Yum, Stefan Göbel, Andreas Reif, Silke Matura\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/59459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining maximum oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2</sub>max) is essential for evaluating cardiorespiratory fitness. While laboratory-based testing is considered the gold standard, sports watches or fitness trackers offer a convenient alternative. However, despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation for VO<sub>2</sub>max estimation outside the laboratory setting.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the Apple Watch Series 7's performance against the gold standard in VO<sub>2</sub>max estimation and Apple's validation findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 19 participants (7 female and 12 male), aged 18 to 63 (mean 28.42, SD 11.43) years were included in the validation study. VO<sub>2</sub>max for all participants was determined in a controlled laboratory environment using a metabolic gas analyzer. Thereby, they completed a graded exercise test on a cycle ergometer until reaching subjective exhaustion. This value was then compared with the estimated VO<sub>2</sub>max value from the Apple Watch, which was calculated after wearing the watch for at least 2 consecutive days and measured directly after an outdoor running test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The measured VO<sub>2</sub>max (mean 45.88, SD 9.42 mL/kg/minute) in the laboratory setting was significantly higher than the predicted VO<sub>2</sub>max (mean 41.37, SD 6.5 mL/kg/minute) from the Apple Watch (t<sub>18</sub>=2.51; P=.01) with a medium effect size (Hedges g=0.53). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a good overall agreement between both measurements. However, the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1)=0.47 (95% CI 0.06-0.75) indicated poor reliability. The mean absolute percentage error between the predicted and the actual VO<sub>2</sub>max was 15.79%, while the root mean square error was 8.85 mL/kg/minute. The analysis further revealed higher accuracy when focusing on participants with good fitness levels (mean absolute percentage error=14.59%; root-mean-square error=7.22 ml/kg/minute; ICC(2,1)=0.60 95% CI 0.09-0.87).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Similar to other smartwatches, the Apple Watch also overestimates or underestimates the VO<sub>2</sub>max in individuals with poor or excellent fitness levels, respectively. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of the Apple Watch's VO<sub>2</sub>max estimation is crucial for determining its suitability as an alternative to laboratory testing. The findings of this study will apprise researchers, physical training professionals, and end users of wearable technology, thereby enhancing the knowledge base and practical application of such devices in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness parameters.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR biomedical engineering\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e59459\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325102/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR biomedical engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/59459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR biomedical engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/59459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:测定最大摄氧量(VO2max)对于评估心肺功能至关重要。虽然实验室测试被认为是黄金标准,但运动手表或健身追踪器提供了一种方便的替代方法。然而,尽管腕戴式设备的数量很多,但在实验室以外的环境中,VO2max 的估算还缺乏科学验证:本研究旨在将 Apple Watch Series 7 的性能与 VO2max 估测的黄金标准和苹果公司的验证结果进行比较:方法:共有 19 名参与者(7 名女性和 12 名男性)参加了验证研究,他们的年龄在 18 岁至 63 岁之间(平均 28.42 岁,标准差 11.43 岁)。所有参与者的最大氧饱和度都是在受控实验室环境中使用代谢气体分析仪测定的。然后,他们在自行车测力计上完成分级运动测试,直至达到主观力竭。该值是在连续佩戴手表至少两天后计算得出的,并在户外跑步测试后直接测量:在实验室环境中测得的 VO2max 值(平均值 45.88,标定值 9.42 毫升/千克/分钟)显著高于 Apple Watch 预测的 VO2max 值(平均值 41.37,标定值 6.5 毫升/千克/分钟)(t18=2.51;P=.01),两者的效应大小为中等(Hedges g=0.53)。Bland-Altman 分析显示,两种测量结果的总体一致性良好。然而,类内相关系数 ICC(2,1)=0.47 (95% CI 0.06-0.75)表明可靠性较差。预测 VO2max 与实际 VO2max 之间的平均绝对百分比误差为 15.79%,均方根误差为 8.85 毫升/千克/分钟。分析进一步显示,体能水平较好的参与者的准确性更高(平均绝对百分比误差=14.59%;均方根误差=7.22 毫升/千克/分钟;ICC(2,1)=0.60 95% CI 0.09-0.87):与其他智能手表类似,Apple Watch也会分别高估或低估体能水平较差或较好的人的最大氧饱和度。评估 Apple Watch VO2max 估算值的准确性和可靠性对于确定其是否适合替代实验室测试至关重要。这项研究的结果将为研究人员、体能训练专业人员和可穿戴技术的最终用户提供参考,从而增强此类设备在评估心肺功能参数方面的知识基础和实际应用。
Assessing the Accuracy of Smartwatch-Based Estimation of Maximum Oxygen Uptake Using the Apple Watch Series 7: Validation Study.
Background: Determining maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is essential for evaluating cardiorespiratory fitness. While laboratory-based testing is considered the gold standard, sports watches or fitness trackers offer a convenient alternative. However, despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation for VO2max estimation outside the laboratory setting.
Objective: This study aims to compare the Apple Watch Series 7's performance against the gold standard in VO2max estimation and Apple's validation findings.
Methods: A total of 19 participants (7 female and 12 male), aged 18 to 63 (mean 28.42, SD 11.43) years were included in the validation study. VO2max for all participants was determined in a controlled laboratory environment using a metabolic gas analyzer. Thereby, they completed a graded exercise test on a cycle ergometer until reaching subjective exhaustion. This value was then compared with the estimated VO2max value from the Apple Watch, which was calculated after wearing the watch for at least 2 consecutive days and measured directly after an outdoor running test.
Results: The measured VO2max (mean 45.88, SD 9.42 mL/kg/minute) in the laboratory setting was significantly higher than the predicted VO2max (mean 41.37, SD 6.5 mL/kg/minute) from the Apple Watch (t18=2.51; P=.01) with a medium effect size (Hedges g=0.53). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a good overall agreement between both measurements. However, the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1)=0.47 (95% CI 0.06-0.75) indicated poor reliability. The mean absolute percentage error between the predicted and the actual VO2max was 15.79%, while the root mean square error was 8.85 mL/kg/minute. The analysis further revealed higher accuracy when focusing on participants with good fitness levels (mean absolute percentage error=14.59%; root-mean-square error=7.22 ml/kg/minute; ICC(2,1)=0.60 95% CI 0.09-0.87).
Conclusions: Similar to other smartwatches, the Apple Watch also overestimates or underestimates the VO2max in individuals with poor or excellent fitness levels, respectively. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of the Apple Watch's VO2max estimation is crucial for determining its suitability as an alternative to laboratory testing. The findings of this study will apprise researchers, physical training professionals, and end users of wearable technology, thereby enhancing the knowledge base and practical application of such devices in assessing cardiorespiratory fitness parameters.