PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare activity type classification rates of machine learning algorithms trained on laboratory versus free-living accelerometer data in older adults. METHODS: Thirty-five older adults (21 females and 14 males, 70.8 ± 4.9 yr) performed selected activities in the laboratory while wearing three ActiGraph GT3X+ activity monitors (in the dominant hip, wrist, and ankle; ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL). Monitors were initialized to collect raw acceleration data at a sampling rate of 80 Hz. Fifteen of the participants also wore GT3X+ in free-living settings and were directly observed for 2-3 h. Time- and frequency-domain features from acceleration signals of each monitor were used to train random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models to classify five activity types: sedentary, standing, household, locomotion, and recreational activities. All algorithms were trained on laboratory data (RFLab and SVMLab) and free-living data (RFFL and SVMFL) using 20-s signal sampling windows. Classification accuracy rates of both types of algorithms were tested on free-living data using a leave-one-out technique. RESULTS: Overall classification accuracy rates for the algorithms developed from laboratory data were between 49% (wrist) and 55% (ankle) for the SVMLab algorithms and 49% (wrist) to 54% (ankle) for the RFLab algorithms. The classification accuracy rates for SVMFL and RFFL algorithms ranged from 58% (wrist) to 69% (ankle) and from 61% (wrist) to 67% (ankle), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithms developed on free-living accelerometer data were more accurate in classifying the activity type in free-living older adults than those on our algorithms developed on laboratory accelerometer data. Future studies should consider using free-living accelerometer data to train machine learning algorithms in older adults.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare activity type classification rates of machine learning algorithms trained on laboratory versus free-living accelerometer data in older adults. METHODS: Thirty-five older adults (21 females and 14 males, 70.8 ± 4.9 yr) performed selected activities in the laboratory while wearing three ActiGraph GT3X+ activity monitors (in the dominant hip, wrist, and ankle; ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL). Monitors were initialized to collect raw acceleration data at a sampling rate of 80 Hz. Fifteen of the participants also wore GT3X+ in free-living settings and were directly observed for 2-3 h. Time- and frequency-domain features from acceleration signals of each monitor were used to train random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models to classify five activity types: sedentary, standing, household, locomotion, and recreational activities. All algorithms were trained on laboratory data (RFLab and SVMLab) and free-living data (RFFL and SVMFL) using 20-s signal sampling windows. Classification accuracy rates of both types of algorithms were tested on free-living data using a leave-one-out technique. RESULTS: Overall classification accuracy rates for the algorithms developed from laboratory data were between 49% (wrist) and 55% (ankle) for the SVMLab algorithms and 49% (wrist) to 54% (ankle) for the RFLab algorithms. The classification accuracy rates for SVMFL and RFFL algorithms ranged from 58% (wrist) to 69% (ankle) and from 61% (wrist) to 67% (ankle), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithms developed on free-living accelerometer data were more accurate in classifying the activity type in free-living older adults than those on our algorithms developed on laboratory accelerometer data. Future studies should consider using free-living accelerometer data to train machine learning algorithms in older adults.
Authors: Stephen J Preece; John Y Goulermas; Laurence P J Kenney; Dave Howard; Kenneth Meijer; Robin Crompton Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2009-04-02 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Supun Nakandala; Marta M Jankowska; Fatima Tuz-Zahra; John Bellettiere; Jordan A Carlson; Andrea Z LaCroix; Sheri J Hartman; Dori E Rosenberg; Jingjing Zou; Arun Kumar; Loki Natarajan Journal: J Meas Phys Behav Date: 2021-02-25
Authors: Shannon Halloway; Klodian Dhana; Pankaja Desai; Puja Agarwal; Thomas Holland; Neelum T Aggarwal; Jordi Evers; Frank M Sacks; Vincent J Carey; Lisa L Barnes Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jorgen A Wullems; Sabine M P Verschueren; Hans Degens; Christopher I Morse; Gladys L Onambélé Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240