Nicolás Aguilar-Farías1, Wendy J Brown2, G M E E Geeske Peeters3. 1. The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement Studies, Australia. Electronic address: n.aguilar@uq.edu.au. 2. The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement Studies, Australia. 3. The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement Studies, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Population Health, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the ActiGraph GT3X+ cut-points with the highest accuracy for estimating time spent in sedentary behaviour in older adults in free-living environments. ActivPAL(3)™ was used as the reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: 37 participants (13 males and 24 females, 73.5 ± 7.3 years old) wore an ActiGraph GT3X+ and an ActivPAL(3)™ for 7 consecutive days. For ActivPAL(3)™, variables were created based on posture. For ActiGraph GT3X+, sedentary behaviour was defined as (1) vector magnitude and (2) vertical axis counts for 1-s, 15-s and 1-min epochs, with cut-points for 1-s epochs of <1 to <10 counts, for 15-s epochs of <1 to <100 counts and for 1-min epochs of <1 to <400 counts. For each of the ActiGraph GT3X+ cut-points, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve), sensitivity, specificity, and percentage correctly classified were calculated. Bias and 95% limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: The highest areas under the curve were obtained for the vector magnitude cut-points: <1 count/s, <70 counts/15-s, and <200 counts/min; and for the vertical axis cut-points: <1 count/s, <10 counts/15-s and <25 counts/min. Mean biases ranged from -4.29 to 124.28 min/day. The 95% limits of agreement for these cut-points were ± 2 h suggesting great inter-individual variation. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that cut-points are dependent on unit of analyses (i.e. epoch length and axes); cut-points for a given epoch length and axis cannot simply be extrapolated to other epoch lengths. Limitations regarding inter-individual variability and misclassification of standing activity as sitting/lying must be considered.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the ActiGraph GT3X+ cut-points with the highest accuracy for estimating time spent in sedentary behaviour in older adults in free-living environments. ActivPAL(3)™ was used as the reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: 37 participants (13 males and 24 females, 73.5 ± 7.3 years old) wore an ActiGraph GT3X+ and an ActivPAL(3)™ for 7 consecutive days. For ActivPAL(3)™, variables were created based on posture. For ActiGraph GT3X+, sedentary behaviour was defined as (1) vector magnitude and (2) vertical axis counts for 1-s, 15-s and 1-min epochs, with cut-points for 1-s epochs of <1 to <10 counts, for 15-s epochs of <1 to <100 counts and for 1-min epochs of <1 to <400 counts. For each of the ActiGraph GT3X+ cut-points, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve), sensitivity, specificity, and percentage correctly classified were calculated. Bias and 95% limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: The highest areas under the curve were obtained for the vector magnitude cut-points: <1 count/s, <70 counts/15-s, and <200 counts/min; and for the vertical axis cut-points: <1 count/s, <10 counts/15-s and <25 counts/min. Mean biases ranged from -4.29 to 124.28 min/day. The 95% limits of agreement for these cut-points were ± 2 h suggesting great inter-individual variation. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that cut-points are dependent on unit of analyses (i.e. epoch length and axes); cut-points for a given epoch length and axis cannot simply be extrapolated to other epoch lengths. Limitations regarding inter-individual variability and misclassification of standing activity as sitting/lying must be considered.
Authors: Elizabeth B Lynch; Laurin Mack; Elizabeth Avery; Yamin Wang; Rebecca Dawar; DeJuran Richardson; Kathryn Keim; Jennifer Ventrelle; Bradley M Appelhans; Bettina Tahsin; Leon Fogelfeld Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Inmaculada C Álvarez-Gallardo; Fernando Estévez-López; Xitlali C Torres-Aguilar; Víctor Segura-Jiménez; Milkana Borges-Cosic; Alberto Soriano-Maldonado; Daniel Camiletti-Moirón; Inmaculada C García-Rodríguez; Diego Munguía-Izquierdo; Ángela Sierras-Robles; Manuel Delgado-Fernández; María J Girela-Rejón Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Sarah Kozey Keadle; Eric J Shiroma; Masamitsu Kamada; Charles E Matthews; Tamara B Harris; I-Min Lee Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Elizabeth B Lynch; Rebecca Liebman; Jennifer Ventrelle; Kathryn Keim; Bradley M Appelhans; Elizabeth F Avery; Bettina Tahsin; Hong Li; Merle Shapera; Leon Fogelfeld Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Marquis Hawkins; Deirdre K Tobias; Hala B Alessa; Andrea K Chomistek; Junaidah B Barnett; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: M A Mahieu; G E Ahn; J S Chmiel; D D Dunlop; I B Helenowski; P Semanik; J Song; S Yount; R W Chang; R Ramsey-Goldman Journal: Lupus Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.911
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Sarah Kozey Keadle; Steven C Moore; Dale S Schoeller; Raymond J Carroll; Richard P Troiano; Joshua N Sampson Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Annemarie Koster; Eric J Shiroma; Paolo Caserotti; Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Nancy W Glynn; Tamara B Harris Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.411