Accuracy of a Smart-Ring VO2max Estimate and Five Published Prediction Equations Against Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: Development and Validation Study With Population-Scale Analysis
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is a leading marker of cardiorespiratory fitness and a strong predictor of all-cause mortality. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the reference method but is resource-intensive, so consumer wearables estimate VO2max from passively collected signals; these estimates compress the fitness range, returning near-correct group averages while ranking individuals poorly. No peer-reviewed validation of a smart-ring VO2max estimate against CPET has been reported, and none in a South Asian cohort.
Objective
To validate the Ultrahuman Ring AIR VO2max estimate against laboratory CPET, benchmark it against published prediction equations, and assess its generalization and construct validity.
Methods
In a single-site paired ring-CPET cohort (N=101; CPET peak VO2 43.3 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, SD 9.9), peak oxygen uptake was measured by treadmill or cycle-ergometer CPET, and the Ultrahuman Ring AIR estimate was computed from passively collected signals using a transparent ensemble based on published equations. Ensemble weights and calibration were selected on an 85-subject development set by an automated search minimizing a composite 5-fold cross-validated error criterion; the locked estimate was evaluated on a 16-subject held-out test set. The calibrated coefficients are proprietary. Agreement was quantified with mean absolute error (MAE), bias, Pearson r, regression slope and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC; bootstrap 95% CIs), and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. Separately, in 181,133 deidentified Ring users (no CPET reference), construct validity was assessed against ring-measured sleep, continuous glucose monitoring (n=2,597), and a venous blood panel (n up to 15,203), adjusted for age, sex, and BMI, with lipoprotein(a) as a pre-specified negative control. Reporting followed TRIPOD and STARD.
Results
With a self-reported fitness level provided, the estimate agreed with CPET peak VO2 at MAE 4.68 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ (95% CI 3.93 to 5.49), Pearson r 0.79, CCC 0.79, and slope 0.71. The five published equations were worse on every metric (MAE 6.2 to 10.6, CCC 0.28 to 0.56, slope 0.32 to 0.42), each compressing the fitness range. On the held-out test set (n=16), agreement held (r 0.84, slope 0.81, MAE essentially unchanged). Without the fitness input, full-cohort MAE was 5.16, still ahead of every published equation. At population scale, higher estimated fitness tracked a healthier profile on measurements the estimate does not use: better ring-measured sleep; higher continuous-glucose time in target range (79.6% versus 61.5%, top versus bottom decile; n=222 and 399 of 2,597 users); and lower triglycerides, fasting glucose, and HOMA-IR (n up to 15,203 assayed per marker). These associations held after adjustment for age, sex, and BMI, whereas the pre-specified negative control lipoprotein(a) did not separate the deciles.
Conclusions
The Ultrahuman Ring AIR VO2max estimate agreed with laboratory CPET substantially better than published prediction equations, held its agreement on held-out subjects, and ordered a large population along independent cardiometabolic gradients consistent with true fitness.
Trial Registration
Not applicable.
