Accuracy of Three Commercial Wearable Devices for Sleep Tracking in Healthy Adults

Robbins, Weaver, Sullivan, Quan, Gilmore, Shaw, Benz, Qadri, Barger, Czeisler, Duffy · 2024 · Sensors 24(20):6532

Observational study · Rang 5 von 9

doi.org/10.3390/s24206532 PubMed 39460013

What this work gives Aellic

n = 35 against laboratory polysomnography: Oura performs best among the consumer devices (κ 0.65 on the four-stage classification, ahead of Apple Watch 0.60 and Fitbit Sense 0.55) — but remains far from polysomnography.

Correction of 25 July 2026

The author line read “Chinoy, Robbins et al.”; Evan Chinoy is not involved in this paper.

The entry on the register was wrong. It was not replaced but kept — with what holds instead standing next to it.

Where this sits in the engine

1 declared site — constants and thresholds in the code that point at this entry.

Sleep Sleep stages and bedtime 1 site

To the full register Sites without a source Report an error