Cross-evaluation of wearable data for use in Parkinson's disease research: a free-living observational study on Empatica E4, Fitbit Sense, and Oura.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Haakon Reithe, Brice Marty, Juan C Torrado, Elise Førsund, Bettina S Husebo, Ane Erdal, Simon U Kverneng, Erika Sheard, Charalampos Tzoulis, Monica Patrascu
{"title":"Cross-evaluation of wearable data for use in Parkinson's disease research: a free-living observational study on Empatica E4, Fitbit Sense, and Oura.","authors":"Haakon Reithe, Brice Marty, Juan C Torrado, Elise Førsund, Bettina S Husebo, Ane Erdal, Simon U Kverneng, Erika Sheard, Charalampos Tzoulis, Monica Patrascu","doi":"10.1186/s12938-025-01353-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Established assessment scales used for Parkinson's disease (PD) have several limitations in tracking symptom progression and fluctuation. Both research and commercial-grade wearables show potential in improving these assessments. However, it is not known whether pervasive and affordable devices can deliver reliable data, suitable for designing open-source unobtrusive around-the-clock assessments. Our aim is to investigate the usefulness of the research-grade wristband Empatica E4, commercial-grade smartwatch Fitbit Sense, and the Oura ring, for PD research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study included participants with PD (N = 15) and neurologically healthy controls (N = 16). Data were collected using established assessment scales (Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire, Hoehn and Yahr Stage), self-reported diary (activities, symptoms, sleep, medication times), and 2-week digital data from the three devices collected simultaneously. The analyses comprised three steps: preparation (device characteristics assessment, data extraction and preprocessing), processing (data structuring and visualization, cross-correlation analysis, diary comparison, uptime calculation), and evaluation (usability, availability, statistical analyses).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found large variation in data characteristics and unsatisfactory cross-correlation. Due to output incongruences, only heart rate and movement could be assessed across devices. Empatica E4 and Fitbit Sense outperformed Oura in reflecting self-reported activities. Results show a weak output correlation and significant differences. The uptime was good, but Oura did not record heart rate and movement concomitantly. We also found variation in terms of access to raw data, sampling rate and level of device-native processing, ease of use, retrieval of data, and design. We graded the system usability of Fitbit Sense as good, Empatica E4 as poor, with Oura in the middle.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study we identified a set of characteristics necessary for PD research: ease of handling, cleaning, data retrieval, access to raw data, score calculation transparency, long battery life, sufficient storage, higher sampling frequencies, software and hardware reliability, transparency. The three analyzed devices are not interchangeable and, based on data features, none were deemed optimal for PD research, but they all have the potential to provide suitable specifications in future iterations.</p>","PeriodicalId":8927,"journal":{"name":"BioMedical Engineering OnLine","volume":"24 1","pages":"22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11846298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioMedical Engineering OnLine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-025-01353-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Established assessment scales used for Parkinson's disease (PD) have several limitations in tracking symptom progression and fluctuation. Both research and commercial-grade wearables show potential in improving these assessments. However, it is not known whether pervasive and affordable devices can deliver reliable data, suitable for designing open-source unobtrusive around-the-clock assessments. Our aim is to investigate the usefulness of the research-grade wristband Empatica E4, commercial-grade smartwatch Fitbit Sense, and the Oura ring, for PD research.

Method: The study included participants with PD (N = 15) and neurologically healthy controls (N = 16). Data were collected using established assessment scales (Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire, Hoehn and Yahr Stage), self-reported diary (activities, symptoms, sleep, medication times), and 2-week digital data from the three devices collected simultaneously. The analyses comprised three steps: preparation (device characteristics assessment, data extraction and preprocessing), processing (data structuring and visualization, cross-correlation analysis, diary comparison, uptime calculation), and evaluation (usability, availability, statistical analyses).

Results: We found large variation in data characteristics and unsatisfactory cross-correlation. Due to output incongruences, only heart rate and movement could be assessed across devices. Empatica E4 and Fitbit Sense outperformed Oura in reflecting self-reported activities. Results show a weak output correlation and significant differences. The uptime was good, but Oura did not record heart rate and movement concomitantly. We also found variation in terms of access to raw data, sampling rate and level of device-native processing, ease of use, retrieval of data, and design. We graded the system usability of Fitbit Sense as good, Empatica E4 as poor, with Oura in the middle.

Conclusions: In this study we identified a set of characteristics necessary for PD research: ease of handling, cleaning, data retrieval, access to raw data, score calculation transparency, long battery life, sufficient storage, higher sampling frequencies, software and hardware reliability, transparency. The three analyzed devices are not interchangeable and, based on data features, none were deemed optimal for PD research, but they all have the potential to provide suitable specifications in future iterations.

用于帕金森病研究的可穿戴数据交叉评估:Empatica E4、Fitbit Sense和Oura的自由生活观察研究
背景:用于帕金森病(PD)的现有评估量表在追踪症状进展和波动方面存在一些局限性。研究级和商用级可穿戴设备都显示出改善这些评估的潜力。然而,目前尚不清楚普及和负担得起的设备是否能够提供可靠的数据,适合设计开源且不引人注目的全天候评估。我们的目标是调查研究级腕带Empatica E4、商业级智能手表Fitbit Sense和Oura戒指对PD研究的有用性。方法:研究对象为PD患者(N = 15)和神经健康对照组(N = 16)。数据收集采用已建立的评估量表(运动障碍学会统一帕金森病评定量表、蒙特利尔认知评估、快速眼动睡眠行为障碍筛查问卷、Hoehn和Yahr阶段)、自我报告日记(活动、症状、睡眠、用药时间)和同时收集的三种设备的2周数字数据。分析包括三个步骤:准备(设备特性评估、数据提取和预处理)、处理(数据结构和可视化、相互关联分析、日志比较、正常运行时间计算)和评估(可用性、可用性、统计分析)。结果:我们发现数据特征差异较大,相互关系不理想。由于输出不一致,只有心率和运动可以跨设备评估。Empatica E4和Fitbit Sense在反映自我报告的活动方面优于Oura。结果显示输出相关性弱,差异显著。正常运行时间很好,但Oura没有同时记录心率和运动。我们还发现在访问原始数据、采样率和设备本地处理水平、易用性、数据检索和设计方面存在差异。我们给Fitbit Sense的系统可用性打了好分,Empatica E4打了差分,Oura打在中间。结论:在本研究中,我们确定了PD研究所需的一组特征:易于处理,清洁,数据检索,原始数据访问,评分计算透明度,电池寿命长,足够的存储,更高的采样频率,软件和硬件可靠性,透明度。这三种被分析的设备是不可互换的,基于数据特征,没有一种被认为是PD研究的最佳选择,但它们都有可能在未来的迭代中提供合适的规格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BioMedical Engineering OnLine
BioMedical Engineering OnLine 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
79
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BioMedical Engineering OnLine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that is dedicated to publishing research in all areas of biomedical engineering. BioMedical Engineering OnLine is aimed at readers and authors throughout the world, with an interest in using tools of the physical and data sciences and techniques in engineering to understand and solve problems in the biological and medical sciences. Topical areas include, but are not limited to: Bioinformatics- Bioinstrumentation- Biomechanics- Biomedical Devices & Instrumentation- Biomedical Signal Processing- Healthcare Information Systems- Human Dynamics- Neural Engineering- Rehabilitation Engineering- Biomaterials- Biomedical Imaging & Image Processing- BioMEMS and On-Chip Devices- Bio-Micro/Nano Technologies- Biomolecular Engineering- Biosensors- Cardiovascular Systems Engineering- Cellular Engineering- Clinical Engineering- Computational Biology- Drug Delivery Technologies- Modeling Methodologies- Nanomaterials and Nanotechnology in Biomedicine- Respiratory Systems Engineering- Robotics in Medicine- Systems and Synthetic Biology- Systems Biology- Telemedicine/Smartphone Applications in Medicine- Therapeutic Systems, Devices and Technologies- Tissue Engineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信