Key result
Smartphone-based 3-minute step test shows moderate concordance with gold-standard VO2max testing across demographics.
Why the study?
VO2 max measurements are rarely performed in clinical care or large-scale studies due to high cost, participant burden, and need for specialized equipment and staff.
Do smartphone sensor-based protocols (12-MRT and 3-MST) accurately and reliably estimate VO2 max compared to standard testing in laboratory and remote settings?
Cross-Sectional (n=101)
Randomized into two groups for test order
No
Do smartphone sensor-based protocols (12-MRT and 3-MST) accurately and reliably estimate VO2 max compared to standard testing in laboratory and remote settings?
Effect estimate: pc=0.61
A smartphone-based 3-minute step test (Heart Snapshot) provides a valid and reliable estimation of VO2 max in remote settings across diverse demographics and smartphone devices.
HRV-augmented wearables may modestly improve remote VO2max estimation in clinical cohorts; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
Expanding access to precision medicine will increasingly require that patient biometrics can be measured in remote care settings. VO 2 max, the maximum volume of oxygen usable during intense exercise, is one of the most predictive biometric risk factors for cardiovascular disease, frailty, and overall mortality. 1,2 However, VO 2 max measurements are rarely performed in clinical care or large-scale epidemiologic studies due to the high cost, participant burden, and need for specialized laboratory equipment and staff. 3,4 To overcome these barriers, we developed two smartphone sensor-based protocols for estimating VO 2 max: a generalization of a 12-minute run test (12-MRT) and a submaximal 3-minute step test (3-MST). In laboratory settings, Lins concordance for these two tests relative to gold standard VO 2 max testing was p c =0.66 for 12-MRT and p c =0.61 for 3-MST. Relative to “silver standards” 5 (Cooper/Tecumseh protocols), concordance was p c =0.96 and p c =0.94, respectively. However, in remote settings, 12-MRT was significantly less concordant with gold standard ( p c =0.25) compared to 3-MST ( p c =0.61), though both had high test-retest reliability (ICC=0.88 and 0.86, respectively). These results demonstrate the importance of real-world evidence for validation of digital health measurements. In order to validate 3-MST in a broadly representative population in accordance with the All of Us Research Program 6 for which this measurement was developed, the camera-based heart rate measurement was investigated for potential bias. No systematic measurement error was observed that corresponded to skin pigmentation level, operating system, or cost of the phone used. The smartphone-based 3-MST protocol, here termed Heart Snapshot , maintained fidelity across demographic variation in age and sex, across diverse skin pigmentation, and between iOS and Android implementations of various smartphone models. The source code for these smartphone measurements, along with the data used to validate them, 6 are openly available to the research community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Webster et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiorespiratory fitness (n=101). Smartphone-based 3-minute step test and 12-minute run test vs. Gold standard treadmill VO2max testing was evaluated on Lin's concordance index (pc) with gold standard VO2max testing (pc=0.61). The smartphone-based 3-minute step test demonstrated moderate concordance with gold standard VO2max testing in both clinical and remote settings (pc=0.61), maintaining fidelity across demographics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: