ArticlePhysical activity and nutrition2026
Comparison of heart rate measurement accuracy among commercially available photoplethysmography-based wearable devices across exercise intensities.
Article in Physical activity and nutrition, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe compared the heart rate (HR) measurement accuracy of commercially available PPG-based wearable devices against an ECG-based reference device across different exercise intensities.
methodsForty healthy young adults were recruited, and data from 37 participants were analyzed. HR was simultaneously measured using Polar H10 as the ECG-based reference and four PPG-based devices: Polar Verity Sense, Polar Pacer Pro, Apple Watch SE, and Galaxy Watch 6. Participants completed low-, moderate-, and high-intensity treadmill exercise. Accuracy was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsMAE and MAPE generally decreased as intensity increased. Significant differences in MAE were observed among the devices across intensities (p = 0.002). The Polar Verity Sense and Apple Watch SE showed significantly lower MAE than the Polar Pacer Pro and Galaxy Watch 6. During low-intensity exercise, the Apple Watch SE showed lower MAE than the Polar Pacer Pro and Galaxy Watch 6, whereas during high-intensity exercise, the Polar Verity Sense showed lower MAE than the Galaxy Watch 6. CCC values increased with exercise intensity and were consistently higher for the Polar Verity Sense and Apple Watch SE. Bland-Altman analysis showed narrower limits of agreement for the Apple Watch SE and Polar Verity Sense.
conclusionHR measurement accuracy differed substantially among the PPG-based wearable devices. The Apple Watch SE and Polar Verity Sense showed the highest agreement with the ECG-based reference, suggesting that wearable HR data should be interpreted based on device-specific validation.
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.