ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
The Challenge of Measuring Exercise: Advancing Metrological Barriers in Wearable Sensing.
Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regular physical activity offers extensive health benefits, yet current consumer wearables struggle to accurately quantify these effects at an individualized level. Sensor performance often falls short due to susceptibility to interferences, nonstandardized validation, and reliance on indirect estimations. Further, sensors often cannot capture or account for disparities in measurement types, populations, and physiological or anatomical characteristics, nor can they account for how different exercise modalities affect results on a personalized scale. There is a drive for developers to refine the impact of how we measure the benefits of exercise, improving the usefulness of data through advanced optical modeling and spectroscopic applications. This review critically examines the shortcomings of prevailing noninvasive measurements and techniques used in common, commercially available fitness trackers and describes why it is difficult to quantify the effects of exercise as an individualized, quality-based metric. Next, we discuss newer sensing applications that attempt to curtail known limitations, some of which may unveil novel biometric insights through differentiated approaches, bridging gaps not only in technological advancement but also in physiological metrology. In conclusion, we believe that new sensing techniques should explore solutions beyond population-based statistics and aim to provide an individualized understanding of a person's response to exercise, while also reducing disparities in personalized health monitoring. The results could lead to a more effective understanding of exercise efficacy and its impact on performance management and clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.