Cargando…
Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles
Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones. There has been a trend in recent years to develop tools to monitor fluid intake using “smart” products such as smart bottles. Several commercial smart bottles are available, mainly targeting health-conscious adults....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924188/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35292675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5 |
_version_ | 1784669794844278784 |
---|---|
author | Cohen, Rachel Fernie, Geoff Roshan Fekr, Atena |
author_facet | Cohen, Rachel Fernie, Geoff Roshan Fekr, Atena |
author_sort | Cohen, Rachel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones. There has been a trend in recent years to develop tools to monitor fluid intake using “smart” products such as smart bottles. Several commercial smart bottles are available, mainly targeting health-conscious adults. To the best of our knowledge, these bottles have not been validated in the literature. This study compares four commercially available smart bottles in terms of both performance and functionality. These bottles are the H2OPal, HidrateSpark Steel, HidrateSpark 3, and Thermos Smart Lid. One hundred intake events for each bottle were recorded and analyzed versus ground truth obtained from a high-resolution weight scale. The H2OPal had the lowest Mean Percent Error (MPE) and was able to balance out errors throughout multiple sips. The HidrateSpark 3 provided the most consistent and reliable results, with the lowest per sip error. The MPE values for HidrateSpark bottles were further improved using linear regression, as they had more consistent individual error values. The Thermos Smart Lid provides the lowest accuracy, as the sensors do not extend through the entire bottle, leading to many missed recordings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8924188 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89241882022-03-17 Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles Cohen, Rachel Fernie, Geoff Roshan Fekr, Atena Sci Rep Article Fluid intake is important to prevent dehydration and reduce recurrent kidney stones. There has been a trend in recent years to develop tools to monitor fluid intake using “smart” products such as smart bottles. Several commercial smart bottles are available, mainly targeting health-conscious adults. To the best of our knowledge, these bottles have not been validated in the literature. This study compares four commercially available smart bottles in terms of both performance and functionality. These bottles are the H2OPal, HidrateSpark Steel, HidrateSpark 3, and Thermos Smart Lid. One hundred intake events for each bottle were recorded and analyzed versus ground truth obtained from a high-resolution weight scale. The H2OPal had the lowest Mean Percent Error (MPE) and was able to balance out errors throughout multiple sips. The HidrateSpark 3 provided the most consistent and reliable results, with the lowest per sip error. The MPE values for HidrateSpark bottles were further improved using linear regression, as they had more consistent individual error values. The Thermos Smart Lid provides the lowest accuracy, as the sensors do not extend through the entire bottle, leading to many missed recordings. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8924188/ /pubmed/35292675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Cohen, Rachel Fernie, Geoff Roshan Fekr, Atena Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
title | Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
title_full | Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
title_fullStr | Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
title_full_unstemmed | Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
title_short | Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
title_sort | monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924188/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35292675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cohenrachel monitoringfluidintakebycommerciallyavailablesmartwaterbottles AT ferniegeoff monitoringfluidintakebycommerciallyavailablesmartwaterbottles AT roshanfekratena monitoringfluidintakebycommerciallyavailablesmartwaterbottles |