Testing the Impact of Intensive, Longitudinal Sampling on Assessments of Statistical Power and Effect Size Within a...

The recent emergence of wearable devices has made feasible the passive gathering of intensive, longitudinal data from large groups of individuals. This form of data is effective at capturing physiological changes between participants (interindividual variability) and changes within participants over time (intraindividual variability). The emergence of longitudinal datasets provides an opportunity to quantify the contribution of such longitudinal data to the control of these sources of variability for applications such as responder analysis, where traditional, sparser sampling methods may hinder the categorization of individuals into these phenotypes.

This study aimed to quantify the gains made in statistical power and effect size among statistical comparisons when controlling for interindividual variability and intraindividual variability compared with controlling for neither.

Here, we test the gains in statistical power from controlling for interindividual and intraindividual variability of resting heart rate, collected in 2020 for over 40,000 individuals as part of the TemPredict study on COVID-19 detection. We compared heart rate on weekends with that on weekdays because weekends predictably change the behavior of most individuals, though not all, and in different ways. Weekends also repeat consistently, making their effects on heart rate feasible to assess with confidence over large populations. We therefore used weekends as a model system to test the impact of different statistical controls on detecting a recurring event with a clear ground truth. We randomly and iteratively sampled heart rate from weekday and weekend nights, controlling for interindividual variability, intraindividual variability, both, or neither.

Between-participant variability appeared to be a greater source of structured variability than within-participant fluctuations. Accounting for interindividual variability through within-individual sampling required 40× fewer pairs of samples to achieve statistical significance with 4× to 5× greater effect size at significance. Within-individual sampling revealed differential effects of weekends on heart rate, which were obscured by aggregated sampling methods.

This work highlights the leverage provided by longitudinal, within-individual sampling to increase statistical power among populations with heterogeneous effects.