Assessment of laboratory and daily energy expenditure estimates from consumer multi-sensor physical activity monitors.
Assessment of laboratory and daily energy expenditure estimates from consumer multi-sensor physical activity monitors.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0171720
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Thompson D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chowdhury EA;Western MJ;Nightingale TE;Peacock OJ;Thompson D
可穿戴式身体活动监测仪越来越受欢迎，并为大量公众提供了自我监测身体活动行为的机会。最新一代的这些设备具有多个传感器，表面上类似甚至优于先进的研究仪器。然而，人们对他们的能量消耗估算的准确性知之甚少。在这里，我们根据标准测量在受控实验室条件下（模拟日常生活活动和有组织的锻炼）和在自由生活条件下的24小时内评估了他们的表现。30名男性（n = 15）和女性（n = 15）佩戴了三个多传感器消费者监视器（Microsoft Band， Apple Watch和Fitbit Charge HR），一个仅用于比较的加速度计设备（Jawbone UP24）和经过验证的研究级多传感器设备（BodyMedia Core和单独校准的Actiheart™）。在离散的实验室活动中，与间接量热法相比，Apple Watch的表现与标准测量相似。Fitbit Charge HR在测量离散活动方面的一致性较差，但与Apple Watch产生了类似的自由生活估算。这两种装置均低估了自由生活能量消耗（分别为-394 kcal/d和-405 kcal/d， P<0.01）。多传感器Microsoft Band和仅支持加速度计的Jawbone UP24设备低估了大多数实验室活动，大大低估了自由生活支出（分别为-1128 kcal/d和-998 kcal/d， P<0.01）。没有一种消费设备被认为等同于每日能量消耗的参考方法。对于所有设备来说，随着每日能量消耗的增加，存在负偏差的趋势。尽管在某些（但不是全部）情况下，估计值接近标准测量值，但没有任何消费者监测器表现得像研究级设备那样好。因此，虽然行业主导的创新提高了消费者监视器的准确性，但这些设备还不能等同于最好的研究级设备，或者实际上彼此等同。我们建议需要独立的质量标准和/或消费者设备的准确性评级。
Wearable physical activity monitors are growing in popularity and provide the opportunity for large numbers of the public to self-monitor physical activity behaviours. The latest generation of these devices feature multiple sensors, ostensibly similar or even superior to advanced research instruments. However, little is known about the accuracy of their energy expenditure estimates. Here, we assessed their performance against criterion measurements in both controlled laboratory conditions (simulated activities of daily living and structured exercise) and over a 24 hour period in free-living conditions. Thirty men (n = 15) and women (n = 15) wore three multi-sensor consumer monitors (Microsoft Band, Apple Watch and Fitbit Charge HR), an accelerometry-only device as a comparison (Jawbone UP24) and validated research-grade multi-sensor devices (BodyMedia Core and individually calibrated Actiheart™). During discrete laboratory activities when compared against indirect calorimetry, the Apple Watch performed similarly to criterion measures. The Fitbit Charge HR was less consistent at measurement of discrete activities, but produced similar free-living estimates to the Apple Watch. Both these devices underestimated free-living energy expenditure (-394 kcal/d and -405 kcal/d, respectively; P<0.01). The multi-sensor Microsoft Band and accelerometry-only Jawbone UP24 devices underestimated most laboratory activities and substantially underestimated free-living expenditure (-1128 kcal/d and -998 kcal/d, respectively; P<0.01). None of the consumer devices were deemed equivalent to the reference method for daily energy expenditure. For all devices, there was a tendency for negative bias with greater daily energy expenditure. No consumer monitors performed as well as the research-grade devices although in some (but not all) cases, estimates were close to criterion measurements. Thus, whilst industry-led innovation has improved the accuracy of consumer monitors, these devices are not yet equivalent to the best research-grade devices or indeed equivalent to each other. We propose independent quality standards and/or accuracy ratings for consumer devices are required.