PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ong, Ju Lynn
AU  - Golkashani, Hosein Aghayan
AU  - Ghorbani, Shohreh
AU  - Wong, Kian F
AU  - Chee, Nicholas IYN
AU  - Willoughby, Adrian R
AU  - Chee, Michael WL
TI  - A Data Driven Approach for Choosing a Wearable Sleep Tracker
AID  - 10.1101/2023.10.12.23296981
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.10.12.23296981
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/13/2023.10.12.23296981.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/13/2023.10.12.23296981.full
AB  - Goal and Aims To evaluate the performance of 6 wearable devices across 4 device classes (research-grade EEG-based headband, research-grade actigraphy, high-end consumer tracker, low-cost consumer tracker) over 3 age-groups (young: 18-30y, middle-aged: 31-50y and older adults: 51-70y).Focus Technology Dreem 3 headband, Actigraph GT9X, Oura ring Gen3 running the latest sleep staging algorithm (OSSA 2.0), Fitbit Sense, Xiaomi Mi Band 7, Axtro Fit3.Reference Technology In-lab polysomnography (PSG) with consensus sleep scoring.Sample 60 participants (26 males) across 3 age groups (young: N=21, middle-aged: N=23 and older adults: N=16).Design Participants slept overnight in a sleep laboratory from their habitual sleep time to wake time, wearing 5 devices concurrently.Core Analytics Discrepancy and epoch-by-epoch analyses for sleep/wake (2-stage) and sleep-stage (4-stage; wake/light/deep/REM) classification (devices vs. PSG). Mixed model ANOVAs for comparisons of biases across devices (within-subject), and age and sex (between-subjects).Core Outcomes The EEG-based Dreem headband outperformed the other wearables in terms of 2-stage (kappa = .76) and 4-stage (kappa = .76-.86) classification but was not tolerated by at least 25% of participants. This was followed by the high-end, validated consumer trackers: Oura (2-stage kappa = .64, 4-stage kappa = .55-.70) and Fitbit (2-stage kappa = .58, 4-stage kappa = .45-.60). Next was the accelerometry-based research-grade Actigraph which only provided 2-stage classification (kappa = .47), and finally the low-cost consumer trackers which had very low kappa values overall (2-stage kappa < .31, 4-stage kappa < .33).Important Additional Outcomes Proportional biases were driven by nights with poorer sleep (i.e., longer sleep onset latencies [SOL] and wake after sleep onset [WASO]). For those nights with sleep efficiency ≥85%, the large majority of sleep measure estimates from Dreem, Oura, Fitbit and Actigraph were within clinically acceptable limits of 30 mins. Biases for total sleep time [TST] and WASO were also largest in older participants who tended to have poorer sleep.Core Conclusion The Dreem band is recommended for highest accuracy sleep tracking, but it has price, comfort and ease of use trade-offs. The high-end consumer sleep trackers (Oura, Fitbit) balance classification accuracy with cost, comfort and ease of use and are recommended for large-scale population studies where sleep is mostly normal. The low-cost trackers, despite poor wake detection could have some utility for logging time in bed.Competing Interest StatementOura Health Oy funded the data collection for the evaluation of its new sleep staging algorithm (OSSA 2.0), but the company did not influence the design of the study, analyses, its interpretation or data presentation. All other equipment was contributed by the Sleep and Cognition Laboratory.Funding StatementThis work was supported by funds from Oura Health Oy, the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Lee Foundation, and the National Medical Research Council Singapore (STaR May2019-001) awarded to Dr Michael W.L. Chee.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board of the National University of Singapore gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesSummarized data underlying the results presented in the study are available upon reasonable request.