BMC Digital Health (Jul 2024)

Potential sources of inaccuracy in the Apple watch series 4 energy expenditure estimation algorithm during wheelchair propulsion

  • Marius Lyng Danielsson,
  • Roya Doshmanziari,
  • Berit Brurok,
  • Matthijs Ferdinand Wouda,
  • Julia Kathrin Baumgart

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-024-00101-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 2, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The Apple Watch (AW) was the first smartwatch to provide wheelchair user (WCU) specific information on energy expenditure (EE), but was found to be inaccurate (i.e., it underestimated) and imprecise (i.e., the underestimation was variable). Insight is therefore needed into where these inaccuracies/imprecisions originate. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to investigate how much of the variation in AW EE is explained by heart rate (HR), in addition to other factors such as body mass and height, sex, age, physical activity level and disability. Methods Forty participants (20 WCU, 20 non-disabled) performed three 4-min treadmill wheelchair propulsion stages at different speed-incline combinations, on three separate days, while wearing an AW series 4 (setting: “outdoor push walking pace”). Linear mixed model analyses investigated how much of the variation in AW EE (kcal·min−1) is explained by the fixed effects AW HR (beats·min−1), body mass and height, sex, age, physical activity level and disability. Participant-ID was included as random-intercept effect. The same mixed model analyses were conducted for criterion EE and HR. Marginal R2 (R2m; fixed effects only) and conditional R2 (R2c; fixed and random effects) values were computed. An R2m close to zero indicates that the fixed effects alone do not explain much variation. Results Although criterion HR explained a significant amount of variation in criterion EE (R2m: 0.44, R2c: 0.92, p < 0.001), AW HR explained little variation in AW EE (R2m: 0.06, R2c: 0.86, p < 0.001). In contrast, body mass and sex explained a significant amount of variation in AW EE (R2m: 0.74, R2c: 0.79, p < 0.001). No further improvements in fit were achieved by adding body height, age, physical activity level or disability to the AW EE model (R2m: 0.75, R2c: 0.79, p = 0.659). Conclusion Our results remain inconclusive on whether AW heart rate is used as factor to adjust for exercise intensity in the black box AW EE estimation algorithms. In contrast, body mass explained much of the variation in AW EE, indicating that the AW EE estimation algorithm is very reliant on this factor. Future investigations should explore better individualization of EE estimation algorithms.

Keywords