Cited by 447COVID-19 Digital Contact TracingData-Driven Disease SurveillanceSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

Wearable sensor data and self-reported symptoms for COVID-19 detection

Open access
Quer, Giorgio, Radin, Jennifer M., Gadaleta, Matteo, Baca-Motes, Katie, Ariniello, Lauren, Ramos, Edward, Kheterpal, Vik, Topol, Eric J. +1 more·2021·Nature Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Traditional screening for COVID-19 typically includes survey questions about symptoms and travel history, as well as temperature measurements. Here, we explore whether personal sensor data collected over time may help identify subtle changes indicating an infection, such as in patients with COVID-19. We have developed a smartphone app that collects smartwatch and activity tracker data, as well as self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results, from individuals in the United States, and have assessed whether symptom and sensor data can differentiate COVID-19 positive versus negative cases in symptomatic individuals. We enrolled 30,529 participants between 25 March and 7 June 2020, of whom 3,811 reported symptoms. Of these symptomatic individuals, 54 reported testing positive and 279 negative for COVID-19. We found that a combination of symptom and sensor data resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range (IQR): 0.73-0.86) for discriminating between symptomatic individuals who were positive or negative for COVID-19, a performance that is significantly better (P < 0.01) than a model 1 that considers symptoms alone (AUC = 0.71; IQR: 0.63-0.79). Such continuous, passively captured data may be complementary to virus testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-020-1123-x

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A follow-up study from the DETECT Health study showed that jointly considering participant self-reported symptoms and sensor metrics improved performance relative to either modality alone, reaching an area under the receiver operating curve value of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.86) for classifying COVID-19-positive versus COVID-19-negative status.

    “A follow-up study from this program showed that jointly considering participant self-reported symptoms and sensor metrics improved performance relative to either modality alone, reaching an area under the receiver operating curve value of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.86) for classifying COVID-19-positive versus COVID-19-negative status 61 .”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [61]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies have demonstrated the potential utility of smartwatch data for improving detection of COVID-19 beyond that provided by symptom data alone and for presymptomatic detection of COVID-19.

    “Studies have demonstrated the potential utility of smartwatch data for improving detection of COVID-19 beyond that provided by symptom data alone [215] and for presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 [216].”

    From Wearable Photoplethysmography for Cardiovascular Monitoring (2022) · cites this paper as [215]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]17. Saxena, S.) 55-70 (Springer, 2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quer, G., Radin, J. M., Gadaleta, M., Baca-Motes, K., Ariniello, L., Ramos, E., Kheterpal, V., Topol, E. J., & Steinhubl, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Scripps Research Institute (US)
  • CareEvolution (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Quer, Giorgio
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2020-10-29
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
73-77
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W3095708005
Cited by
447
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 5
FWCI
74.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002550)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, wearable sensors, smartwatch data, mobile application, self-reported symptoms, infection detection, symptom screening, continuous monitoring
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, COVID-19, Adult, Aged, Carrier State, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Sleep, United States, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review