A smartwatch demonstrated moderate-to-excellent agreement with reference sensors for upper extremity motor outcomes (ICC 0.67-0.90) and heart rate features (ICC 0.75-0.94) in older adults.
Observational (n=133)
Does a smartwatch provide valid and reliable upper-extremity function and heart rate assessments compared to reference sensors in older outpatients?
A smartwatch can reliably and validly capture upper-extremity motor function and heart rate metrics during a brief frailty assessment in older adults.
Effect estimate: ICC 0.67-0.90 for motor outcomes; ICC 0.75-0.94 for HR features
BACKGROUND: We previously developed and validated a 20-second upper extremity function (UEF) test for frailty assessment using wearable-derived motor and heart rate (HR) metrics. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, among older adults in hospital, the validity of a smartwatch for extracting UEF motor and HR outcomes relative to wearable sensors, and the test-retest reliability of UEF motor and HR outcomes across two back-to-back trials. METHODS: Adults ≥65 years performed the UEF task. Motor outcomes included elbow angular speed, moment, range of motion, speed reduction, and speed variability. HR outcomes included mean HR during baseline, task, and post-task, and measures of HR increase and recovery. In Experiment I (validation), motor outcomes were compared between motion sensor and smartwatch (n = 43; age=68.98 ± 13.3), and HR outcomes between ECG sensor and smartwatch (n = 23; age=77.26 ± 8.62). In Experiment II, test-retest reliability was quantified for motor outcomes (n = 133; age=73.04 ± 10.99) and HR outcomes (n = 85; age=74.53 ± 9.83). Agreement and repeatability were quantified using two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Smartwatch demonstrated moderate-to-excellent agreement with the motion sensor (ICC = 0.67-0.90) and good-to-excellent agreement for most (78%) HR features (ICC = 0.75-0.94). Test-retest reliability within repeated trials was good-to-excellent for most (83%) motor outcomes (ICC = 0.75-0.96), and for most (78%) HR outcomes (ICC = 0.80-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: A brief seated UEF assessment provides reproducible motor and HR-derived measures in clinic. Further a smartwatch may capture UEF motor outcomes and most HR features with agreement relative to reference sensors.
Hosseinalizadeh et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Older adults (n=133). Smartwatch vs. Motion sensor and ECG sensor was evaluated on Agreement and repeatability of motor and HR outcomes (ICC 0.67-0.90 for motor outcomes; ICC 0.75-0.94 for HR features). A smartwatch demonstrated moderate-to-excellent agreement with reference sensors for upper extremity motor outcomes (ICC 0.67-0.90) and heart rate features (ICC 0.75-0.94) in older adults.