Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41526754›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Collecting, detecting, and handling non-wear intervals in longitudinal light exposure data.

Carolina Guidolin, Johannes Zauner, Steffen Lutz Hartmeyer, Manuel Spitschan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Identifying chest-worn light logger adherence: a validation study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolina GuidolinTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sports Sciences, Chronobiology & Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4959-2667
Johannes ZaunerTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sports Sciences, Chronobiology & Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2171-4566
Steffen Lutz HartmeyerLaboratory of Integrated Performance in Design (LIPID), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-2668
Manuel SpitschanTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Health and Sports Sciences, Chronobiology & Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. manuel.spitschan@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8572-9268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In field studies using wearable light loggers, participants often need to remove the devices, resulting in non-wear intervals of varying and unknown duration. Accurate detection of these intervals is an essential step during data pre-processing. Here, we deployed a multi-modal approach to collect non-wear time during a longitudinal light exposure collection campaign and systematically compare non-wear detection strategies. Healthy participants (n = 26; mean age 28 ± 5 years, 14F) wore a near-corneal plane light logger for 1 week and reported non-wear events in three ways: pressing an "event marker" button on the light logger, placing it in a black bag, and using an app-based Wear log. Wear log entries, checked twice daily, served as ground truth for non-wear detection, showing that non-wear time constituted 5.4 ± 3.8% (mean ± SD) of total participation time. Button presses at the start and end of non-wear intervals were identified in >85.4% of cases when considering time windows beyond 1 min for detection. To detect non-wear intervals based on black bag use and lack of motion, we employed an algorithm that detects clusters of low illuminance and clusters of low activity. Performance was higher for illuminance (F1 = 0.78) than for activity (F1 = 0.52). Light exposure metrics derived from the full dataset, a dataset filtered for non-wear based on self-reports, and a dataset filtered for non-wear using the low illuminance clusters detection algorithm showed minimal differences. Our results highlight that while non-wear detection may be less critical in high-compliance cohorts, systematically collecting and detecting non-wear intervals is feasible and important for ensuring robust data pre-processing.

Indexed as

LightWearable Electronic DevicesAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleTime FactorsYoung AdultBehaviorLight exposureNon-wear behaviorWearables

Identifiers

PMID41526754
PMCPMC12795912

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.