Icon Legend

This session is not in your schedule.

This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.

Device Technologies and Biomedical Robotics

Undergraduate Advances in Device Technologies

Assessing the Validity and Efficacy of Wearable Heart Rate Devices

Saturday, October 26, 2024

8:30 AM - 8:45 AM EST

Location: Room 327

Presenting Author(s)

Emmaly Seyam (she/her/hers)

Undergraduate Student and Researcher
Lehigh University
Denville, New Jersey, United States

Co-Author(s)

Ian Chang

Student
St. Paul’s School
Lincoln, Rhode Island, United States
AB

Anjay Bhatt

Researcher
Lehigh University, United States
RG

Ryan Gross

Undergraduate Student
Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, United States
Joseph Amitrano

PhD Student
Lehigh University
Howell, New Jersey, United States
DS

Dhruv Seshadri

Assistant Professor
Lehigh University, United States

Introduction: Wearable devices offer a unique and non-invasive way to collect physiological vitals such as heart rate (HR). Wrist-worn devices like the Whoop 4.0 collect a majority of data through photoplethysmography (PPG), leveraging light reflectance and absorbance to discern changes in blood volume to produce physiological metrics like HR. Devices like the Polar H10 Heart Rate Monitor utilize electrocardiogram (ECG), similar to the GE Dash 5000, which measures depolarization to produce HR. With various methods to collect similar physiological data, there is a need for validation to confirm these wearable devices are accurately portraying data for the health and benefit of the end users. This study aims to validate wearable devices' HR compared to standard of care, ensuring accuracy and efficacy in the metrics produced.

Materials and

Methods: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved study ( #2113291-4), we aimed to assess the efficacy and validity of two classifications of measuring heart rate in (n=30) thirty student-athletes at Lehigh University. Data from three participants, two male and one female is presented where the participants wore the Polar H10 Heart Rate Sensor around the sternum, Whoop 4.0 around the wrist, and 3-lead ECG via GE Dash 5000 Patient Monitor simultaneously. Data was calibrated for two minutes before a thirty-second walk at a one mile per hour speed. Data collection began with one minute at a speed of two miles per hour then subsequently increased to three miles per hour for one minute, and finally four miles per hour for one minute. Post data collection, a two minute walk at two miles per hour was implemented to regulate the participants' heart rate. Data was collected using the VO2 Master Application (VO2 MASTER HEALTH SENSORS INC, Version 0.43.0) and extracted into CSV files. Data was cleaned and preprocessed through dropping missing points and organizing values per participant. Data analysis consisted of Bland Altman’s plots, scatterplots, and combined scatter plots in Python (Version 3.11.7) and Microsoft Excel (Version 2406).

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: The ability of the Polar H10 to record HR was very close to the gold standard of the GE Dash 5000 with an r2 of 0.93 and a standard deviation of 6.21 (Figure 2A & B). On the other hand, Whoop 4.0 struggled to accurately measure HR. When compared to the GE Dash 5000, Whoop 4.0 measurements yielded an r2 of 0.77 with a standard deviation of 13.66 (Figure 2A & B). For both the Whoop 4.0 and Polar H10, correlations with the GE Dash 5000 measurements generally increased alongside increasing speed during testing. One exception of this trend was Whoop 4.0 showing its highest correlation with GE Dash 5000 at three miles per hour and then decreasing at four miles per hour with r2 values of 0.81 and 0.72 respectively (Figure 2A). From the combined scatter plot (Figure 3), the Whoop 4.0 on average produced a higher HR reading at higher speeds compared to Polar H10 and the GE Dash 5000.

While the Polar H10 had a very high accuracy in measuring HR to the GE Dash 5000, Whoop 4.0 measurements deviated from the gold standard. Whoop 4.0 had a lower r2 value to that of Polar H10 across all speeds, and only became less accurate at four miles per hour. This deficiency could be attributed to the inaccuracy of PPG technology to elucidate HR instead of ECG-based devices as there may be inconsistencies with reflectance and absorbance. Polar H10’s ECG-based system produced a higher correlation towards the gold standard making it the preferred wearable over PPG-based devices to effectively measure HR. Future work will focus on a larger cohort to disseminate any inconsistencies in wearables compared to the GE Dash 5000. As this study continues, we aim to include fifteen female athletes and fifteen male athletes to further assess the HR collection of wearable devices and compare their accuracy for each sex. We plan to validate the efficacy and validity of the Garmin fēnix 7 Sapphire Solar Smartwatch in addition to the Whoop 4.0 and Polar H10 Heart Rate Monitor.

Acknowledgements (Optional):