Literature DB >> 25340969

A random forest classifier for the prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical activity from wrist and hip accelerometers.

Katherine Ellis1, Jacqueline Kerr, Suneeta Godbole, Gert Lanckriet, David Wing, Simon Marshall.   

Abstract

Wrist accelerometers are being used in population level surveillance of physical activity (PA) but more research is needed to evaluate their validity for correctly classifying types of PA behavior and predicting energy expenditure (EE). In this study we compare accelerometers worn on the wrist and hip, and the added value of heart rate (HR) data, for predicting PA type and EE using machine learning. Forty adults performed locomotion and household activities in a lab setting while wearing three ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers (left hip, right hip, non-dominant wrist) and a HR monitor (Polar RS400). Participants also wore a portable indirect calorimeter (COSMED K4b2), from which EE and metabolic equivalents (METs) were computed for each minute. We developed two predictive models: a random forest classifier to predict activity type and a random forest of regression trees to estimate METs. Predictions were evaluated using leave-one-user-out cross-validation. The hip accelerometer obtained an average accuracy of 92.3% in predicting four activity types (household, stairs, walking, running), while the wrist accelerometer obtained an average accuracy of 87.5%. Across all 8 activities combined (laundry, window washing, dusting, dishes, sweeping, stairs, walking, running), the hip and wrist accelerometers obtained average accuracies of 70.2% and 80.2% respectively. Predicting METs using the hip or wrist devices alone obtained root mean square errors (rMSE) of 1.09 and 1.00 METs per 6 min bout, respectively. Including HR data improved MET estimation, but did not significantly improve activity type classification. These results demonstrate the validity of random forest classification and regression forests for PA type and MET prediction using accelerometers. The wrist accelerometer proved more useful in predicting activities with significant arm movement, while the hip accelerometer was superior for predicting locomotion and estimating EE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25340969      PMCID: PMC4374571          DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/35/11/2191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Meas        ISSN: 0967-3334            Impact factor:   2.833


  23 in total

1.  Neural network versus activity-specific prediction equations for energy expenditure estimation in children.

Authors:  Nicole Ruch; Franziska Joss; Gerda Jimmy; Katarina Melzer; Johanna Hänggi; Urs Mäder
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2013-08-29

Review 2.  Resistance exercise training: its role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Randy W Braith; Kerry J Stewart
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Improving assessment of daily energy expenditure by identifying types of physical activity with a single accelerometer.

Authors:  A G Bonomi; G Plasqui; A H C Goris; K R Westerterp
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2009-06-25

Review 4.  Device-based monitoring in physical activity and public health research.

Authors:  David R Bassett
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 2.833

5.  Wrist-worn accelerometers in assessment of energy expenditure during intensive training.

Authors:  H Kinnunen; M Tanskanen; H Kyröläinen; K R Westerterp
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 2.833

6.  Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research.

Authors:  C J Caspersen; K E Powell; G M Christenson
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1985 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

7.  Estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip or wrist.

Authors:  Mary E Rosenberger; William L Haskell; Fahd Albinali; Selene Mota; Jason Nawyn; Stephen Intille
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  Activity recognition using a single accelerometer placed at the wrist or ankle.

Authors:  Andrea Mannini; Stephen S Intille; Mary Rosenberger; Angelo M Sabatini; William Haskell
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Validation of the GENEA Accelerometer.

Authors:  Dale W Esliger; Ann V Rowlands; Tina L Hurst; Michael Catt; Peter Murray; Roger G Eston
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.411

10.  Sensor positioning for activity recognition using wearable accelerometers.

Authors:  L Atallah; B Lo; R King
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.833

View more
  63 in total

1.  Application of feature selection and regression models for chlorophyll-a prediction in a shallow lake.

Authors:  Xue Li; Jian Sha; Zhong-Liang Wang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Developing Novel Machine Learning Algorithms to Improve Sedentary Assessment for Youth Health Enhancement.

Authors:  Gowtham Kumar Golla; Jordan A Carlson; Jun Huan; Jacqueline Kerr; Tarrah Mitchell; Kelsey Borner
Journal:  IEEE Int Conf Healthc Inform       Date:  2016-12-08

3.  The H2020 "NoHoW Project": A Position Statement on Behavioural Approaches to Longer-Term Weight Management.

Authors:  R James Stubbs; Cristiana Duarte; Ruairi O'Driscoll; Jake Turicchi; Dominika Kwasnicka; Falko F Sniehotta; Marta M Marques; Graham Horgan; Sofus Larsen; António Palmeira; Inês Santos; Pedro J Teixeira; Jason Halford; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.942

4.  Evaluating physiological signal salience for estimating metabolic energy cost from wearable sensors.

Authors:  Kimberly A Ingraham; Daniel P Ferris; C David Remy
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2019-01-10

5.  Predictors of enrollment in individual- and couple-based lifestyle intervention trials for cancer survivors.

Authors:  Emily Cox-Martin; Jaejoon Song; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Elizabeth J Lyons; Karen Basen-Engquist
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Objective Assessment of Physical Activity: Classifiers for Public Health.

Authors:  Jacqueline Kerr; Ruth E Patterson; Katherine Ellis; Suneeta Godbole; Eileen Johnson; Gert Lanckriet; John Staudenmayer
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  Methods to estimate aspects of physical activity and sedentary behavior from high-frequency wrist accelerometer measurements.

Authors:  John Staudenmayer; Shai He; Amanda Hickey; Jeffer Sasaki; Patty Freedson
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2015-06-25

8.  Comparison of Accelerometry Methods for Estimating Physical Activity.

Authors:  Jacqueline Kerr; Catherine R Marinac; Katherine Ellis; Suneeta Godbole; Aaron Hipp; Karen Glanz; Jonathan Mitchell; Francine Laden; Peter James; David Berrigan
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Deep CHORES: Estimating Hallmark Measures of Physical Activity Using Deep Learning.

Authors:  Mamoun T Mardini; Subhash Nerella; Amal A Wanigatunga; Santiago Saldana; Ramon Casanova; Todd M Manini
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2021-01-25

10.  Actigraphy features for predicting mobility disability in older adults.

Authors:  Matin Kheirkhahan; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Robert Axtell; Matthew P Buman; Roger A Fielding; Nancy W Glynn; Jack M Guralnik; Abby C King; Daniel K White; Michael E Miller; Juned Siddique; Peter Brubaker; W Jack Rejeski; Stephen Ranshous; Marco Pahor; Sanjay Ranka; Todd M Manini
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.833

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.