Study record · validation · 2023

Quality of Sleep Data Validation From the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Against Polysomnography: Comparison Study

Concheiro-Moscoso P, Groba B, Alvarez-Estevez D, Miranda-Duro MDC, and Pereira J

Journal of Medical Internet Research · 2023

Why this study matters to CircaTest

The most directly relevant published validation for any Xiaomi Mi Band generation. Tests the Mi Band 5 (released 2020) against PSG in a clinical population. The 78% accuracy / 89% sensitivity / 35% specificity / kappa 0.22 figures should NOT be extrapolated to the Smart Band 9 because the underlying sensor (BioTracker generation, processing algorithms) has changed. CircaTest cites this as the only published peer-reviewed Xiaomi-family validation, with the explicit caveat that newer generations require their own validation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Polysomnography is the gold standard for measuring and detecting sleep patterns. In recent years, activity wristbands have become popular because they record continuous data in real time. Hence, comprehensive validation studies are needed to analyze the performance and reliability of these devices in the recording of sleep parameters. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the performance of one of the best-selling activity wristbands, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5, against polysomnography in measuring sleep stages. METHODS: This study was carried out at a hospital in A Coruña, Spain. People who were participating in a polysomnography study at a sleep unit were recruited to wear a Xiaomi Mi Band 5 simultaneously for 1 night. The total sample consisted of 45 adults, 25 (56%) with sleep disorders (SDis) and 20 (44%) without SDis. RESULTS: Overall, the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 displayed 78% accuracy, 89% sensitivity, 35% specificity, and a Cohen κ value of 0.22.

Source: PUBMED · Licensed under CC-BY 4.0

Population

Sample size

n = 45

Age

adult

Reference standard

psg

45 adults at a hospital sleep unit in A Coruña, Spain. 25 (56%) with sleep disorders, 20 (44%) without. Single in-laboratory night with simultaneous PSG and Xiaomi Mi Band 5.

Devices and metrics

Xiaomi Mi Band 5

All studies for this device →

Metric	Value	95% CI	Note
Accuracy	78%	—	Overall epoch agreement vs PSG. Tested on Mi Band 5 (an earlier generation than the Smart Band 9 CircaTest covers); the underlying sensor and algorithm have changed across generations.
Sensitivity	89%	—	Sensitivity to sleep on the Mi Band 5.
Specificity	35%	—	Specificity for wake on the Mi Band 5. Low specificity indicates the device tends to misclassify wakefulness as sleep, the same well-known issue affecting other consumer wrist trackers.
Cohen's kappa	κ = 0.22	—	Cohen's kappa for sleep stage agreement on the Mi Band 5. Fair agreement range. Notably similar to the lowest kappa values reported in Schyvens et al. 2025 for other wrist-worn devices.

Cite this study

Concheiro-Moscoso P, Groba B, Alvarez-Estevez D, Miranda-Duro MDC, and Pereira J (2023). Quality of Sleep Data Validation From the Xiaomi Mi Band 5 Against Polysomnography: Comparison Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/42073

AI-assembled record · errors are possible

This page was built and is maintained by AI working from the published abstract and PubMed metadata for the cited study. CircaTest does not have access to the full text of every paper in its corpus. Categories of error that have happened on this site and could happen again include:

Per-device metric values inferred when the abstract reports only an aggregate range
Stage-specific accuracy figures pulled from secondary sources rather than the primary paper
Sample size or population characteristics missing from the abstract
Editorial framing in the curatorial note that overstates the study's actual scope
Year typos and author-name transliteration errors

Where a metric value reads see source, the published abstract did not contain that value and CircaTest deliberately left it null rather than guess. For any decision that depends on the underlying numbers, please consult the linked PubMed, PMC, or DOI source directly. Corrections are welcome via the about page.

Source links

Added to the CircaTest meta-analysis on 2026-04-06. How CircaTest evaluates studies →