Why the study?
Post-COVID fatigue carries a significant burden, and unpredictable fatigue fluctuations impair daily functioning, creating challenges for effective symptom management.
Does wearable device data (HRV, activity, sleep) predict next-day fatigue levels in individuals with post-COVID fatigue?
Does wearable device data (HRV, activity, sleep) predict next-day fatigue levels in individuals with post-COVID fatigue?
Machine learning models using heart rate variability, activity, and sleep data from wearable devices can accurately predict next-day fatigue levels in patients with post-COVID fatigue.
Wearable fatigue prediction models in pCF remain hypothesis-generating; leaves open clinical utility pending prospective validation.
Background: Post-COVID fatigue (pCF) represents a significant burden for many individuals following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The unpredictable nature of fatigue fluctuations impairs daily functioning and quality of life, creating challenges for effective symptom management. Objective: This study investigated the feasibility of developing predictive models to forecast next-day fatigue levels in individuals with pCF, utilizing objective physiological and behavioral features derived from wearable device data. Methods: We analyzed data from 68 participants with pCF who wore an Axivity AX6 device on their non-dominant wrist and a VitalPatch electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor on their chest for up to 21 days while completing fatigue questionnaires every other day. HRV features were extracted from the VitalPatch single-lead ECG signal using the NeuroKit Python package, while activity and sleep features were derived from the Axivity wrist-worn device using the GGIR package. Using a 5-fold cross-validation approach, we trained and evaluated the performances of two machine learning models to predict next-day fatigue levels using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) fatigue scores: Random Forest and XGBoost. Results: Using five-fold cross-validation, XGBoost outperformed Random Forest in predicting next-day fatigue levels (mean R² = 0.79 ± 0.04 vs. 0.69 ± 0.02; MAE = 3.18 ± 0.63 vs. 6.14 ± 0.96). Predicted and observed fatigue scores were strongly correlated for both models (XGBoost: r = 0.89 ± 0.02; Random Forest: r = 0.86 ± 0.01). Key predictors included heart rate variability features-sample entropy, low-frequency power, and approximate entropy-along with demographic (age, sex) and activity-related (moderate and vigorous duration) factors. These findings underscore the importance of integrating physiological, demographic, and activity data for accurate fatigue prediction. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of combining heart rate variability with activity and sleep features to predict next-day fatigue levels in individuals with pCF. Integrating physiological and behavioral data show promising predictive accuracy and provides insights that could inform future personalized fatigue management strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aboagye et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: