Key result
Predictive models for cardiac competence generated from continuous physiological data maintained stable performance (baseline RMSE 0.079) up to 20%-30% data perturbation.
Why the study?
Limited data accuracy limits the integration of consumer wearable data in care management pathways, but the effect of decreasing accuracy on predictive models had not been investigated.
Does data degradation reduce the reliability of prediction models for cardiac competence generated from continuous wearable data in healthy volunteers?
Does data degradation reduce the reliability of prediction models for cardiac competence generated from continuous wearable data in healthy volunteers?
Predictive models for cardiac competence using wearable data remain relatively stable despite up to 20-30% data degradation, suggesting lower device accuracy may not preclude clinical use.
Models tolerate moderate wearable data degradation; leaves open validation in clinical populations before use.
BACKGROUND Limited data accuracy is often cited as a reason for caution in the integration of physiological data obtained from consumer-oriented wearable devices in care management pathways. The effect of decreasing accuracy on predictive models generated from these data has not been previously investigated. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to simulate the effect of data degradation on the reliability of prediction models generated from those data and thus determine the extent to which lower device accuracy might or might not limit their use in clinical settings. METHODS Using the Multilevel Monitoring of Activity and Sleep in Healthy People data set, which includes continuous free-living step count and heart rate data from 21 healthy volunteers, we trained a random forest model to predict cardiac competence. Model performance in 75 perturbed data sets with increasing missingness, noisiness, bias, and a combination of all 3 perturbations was compared to model performance for the unperturbed data set. RESULTS The unperturbed data set achieved a mean root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.079 (SD 0.001) in predicting cardiac competence index. For all types of perturbations, RMSE remained stable up to 20%-30% perturbation. Above this level, RMSE started increasing and reached the point at which the model was no longer predictive at 80% for noise, 50% for missingness, and 35% for the combination of all perturbations. Introducing systematic bias in the underlying data had no effect on RMSE. CONCLUSIONS In this proof-of-concept study, the performance of predictive models for cardiac competence generated from continuously acquired physiological data was relatively stable with declining quality of the source data. As such, lower accuracy of consumer-oriented wearable devices might not be an absolute contraindication for their use in clinical prediction models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hearn et al. (2022) studied Healthy (n=21). Data degradation (missingness, noisiness, bias) vs. Unperturbed data set was evaluated on Root mean square error (RMSE) in predicting cardiac competence index. Predictive models for cardiac competence generated from continuous physiological data maintained stable performance (baseline RMSE 0.079) up to 20%-30% data perturbation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: