Evidence Hub

The Micro-Mobility Sensing Gap: A Systematic Review of Physiological Safety Monitoring from Cycling to E-Scooters

Shah STA, Fernandes JM, Santos JP, Constantinescu G, Pereira AB

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026

27 participants

Abstract

The transition from cycling to electric micro-mobility, such as e-scooters, introduces distinct safety risks. While physiological sensing is established for monitoring cyclist exertion, its transferability to high-vibration e-scooter environments remains unclear. This study systematically reviews wearable sensors used to detect stress, fatigue, and exertion in cycling and micro-mobility to identify gaps preventing active safety systems. A PRISMA-guided search of IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect was performed on 2 October 2025 for studies published in 2015-2025. From 273 records, 11 publications representing nine unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Laboratory studies (n=4) utilizing deep learning (CNN-LSTM) achieved high exertion prediction accuracy (F1 86.3-91.7%) but relied on a single redundant dataset (N=27), lacking independent validation. Field studies (n=7) relied on statistical associations between heart rate variability and environmental stress but lacked real-time predictive capabilities. Notably, evidence for automated physiological safety classification in e-scooters is critically underdeveloped. Current models are overfitted to cycling biomechanics and fail to account for e-scooter constraints, such as whole-body vibration. Future research must shift toward Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) and noise-resilient edge AI architectures to bridge the technological lag in micro-mobility safety.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 27 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free