Heart Rate Estimation Using the Galaxy Watch During Maximal Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: Cross-Sectional Validation Study

Abstract Background Photoplethysmography-based smartwatches are increasingly used for continuous heart rate (HR) monitoring. Their accuracy has been demonstrated at rest or during low-intensity activity, but data are scarce for maximal-intensity exercise, when motion artifacts and rapid hemodynamic changes can degrade the photoplethysmography signal. Validating these devices under such demanding conditions is essential before they are applied to clinical exercise testing, athletic training, or remote health monitoring. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 (GW6) in estimating HR throughout a graded, maximal ramp cardiopulmonary exercise test performed on a treadmill. A secondary aim was to explore whether measurement error varies across 5 predefined intensity zones (50%‐60%, 60%‐70%, 70%‐80%, 80%‐90%, and 90%‐100% of the maximum HR determined individually for each participant). Methods Overall, 55 healthy adults (30 men, 25 women; mean age 30.3, SD 8.2 years) completed a symptom-limited incremental treadmill protocol to volitional exhaustion. Simultaneous HR recordings were obtained from the GW6 (left arm) and a Polar H10 chest strap monitor, which served as the reference standards. For each intensity zone, the following agreement indices were computed: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), median absolute error, median absolute percentage error, and root mean squared error. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to quantify the mean bias and 95% limits of agreement between the GW6 and the Polar H10. Statistical significance was set at P <.05. Results Agreement between the GW6 and Polar H10 varied across exercise intensities. ICC indicated moderate to good agreement at low to moderate intensities (ICC=0.71 at 50%‐60%; ICC=0.89 at 60%‐70%; ICC=0.54 at 70%‐80%; and ICC=0.64 at 80%‐90% HRmax), and at 90%‐100% of HRmax the agreement was good-to-excellent (ICC=0.90). Absolute error metrics showed stable or reduced errors with increasing intensity, with median absolute error consistently around 1‐3 bpm and median absolute percentage error declining from 2.90% at 50%‐60% HRmax to 0.60%‐0.75% at ≥70% HRmax. Root mean squared error ranged from 4.62 to 4.88 bpm across intensity zones. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the GW6 consistently underestimated HR compared with the Polar H10, with an overall mean bias of −2.67 bpm and wide limits of agreement (−16.90 to 11.57 bpm). This negative bias was present across all HR zones. The agreement was adequate for group-level comparisons but displayed substantial individual variability. Conclusions The GW6 provides a good degree of validity for HR monitoring during a maximal treadmill cardiopulmonary exercise test in healthy young adults. Although measurement error increases modestly at near-maximal workloads, absolute errors remain well within clinically acceptable thresholds. These findings support the potential use of GW6 as a convenient, noninvasive alternative for HR tracking in laboratory-based exercise testing.