Back

Predictive performance of wearable sensors for mortality risk in older adults: a model development and validation study

Harper, C.; Sturge, A.; Chan, S.; Maylor, B.; Shreves, A.; Meier, D.; Patkee, P.; Schoonbee, J.; Strange, A.; Nabholz, C.; Bennett, D.; Doherty, A.

2025-04-04 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.04.03.25325101 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMany adults in high-income countries carry a device capable of measuring physical- activity behaviour. Thus, there is public health need to understand whether such data can enhance prediction of future health outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether device-measured daily-step count and walking cadence improve the prediction of mortality beyond traditional risk-factors. MethodsRisk models were developed to predict five-year all-cause mortality using data from the UK Biobank accelerometer sub-study, with external validation in the US 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Median daily-step count and peak one-minute walking cadence were derived using self-supervised machine learning models from seven-day wrist-worn accelerometer data. Cox models were used to develop a baseline model incorporating traditional risk- factors, and a baseline model plus accelerometer data (i.e. daily-steps and walking cadence). Changes in model performance were assessed using Harrells C-index, net reclassification index (NRI; 10% threshold), and the Nam-DAgostino calibration test. FindingsAmong 79,717 UK Biobank participants, 1,640 died within 5-years. Adding accelerometer data to the baseline model modestly improved risk discrimination and classification with a change in c- index of 0.008 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.005-0.011) and 3.3% NRI (95%CI 2.1%-4.5%). Greatest improvements in prediction were observed in participants with prior disease at baseline, showing a change in c-index of 0.028 (95%CI 0.019-0.039) and 5.9% NRI (95%CI 3.1%-8.6%). In the NHANES external validation cohort (n=4,713; deaths=378), similar improvements in prediction were observed (change in c-index: 0.015, 95%CI 0.007-0.025; NRI: 4.0%, 95%CI 0.7%-7.4%). All models were well calibrated (Nam-DAgostino {chi}2 range: 6.8-13.2). InterpretationDevice-measured daily-step count and walking cadence consistently demonstrated modest improvements in predicting mortality risk beyond traditional risk-factors, with the most significant enhancements seen in individuals with prior disease. These findings suggest that incorporating information from wearables does provide important new ways to improve risk stratification for targeted intervention in high-risk individuals.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.5%
2
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 19%
6.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.3%
5
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.9%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.7%
8
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
10
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
13
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
18
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
19
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
20
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
22
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
25
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.6%