Jacqueline Kerr1, Catherine R Marinac, Katherine Ellis, Suneeta Godbole, Aaron Hipp, Karen Glanz, Jonathan Mitchell, Francine Laden, Peter James, David Berrigan. 1. 1Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA; 2Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA; 3Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA; 4Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University Center for Geospatial Analytics, Center for Human Health and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; 5Perelman School of Medicine and School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 6Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; 7Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 8Departments of Environmental Health and Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA; 9Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and 10National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare physical activity estimates across different accelerometer wear locations, wear time protocols, and data processing techniques. METHODS: A convenience sample of middle-age to older women wore a GT3X+ accelerometer at the wrist and hip for 7 d. Physical activity estimates were calculated using three data processing techniques: single-axis cut points, raw vector magnitude thresholds, and machine learning algorithms applied to the raw data from the three axes. Daily estimates were compared for the 321 women using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 1420 d were analyzed. Compliance rates for the hip versus wrist location only varied by 2.7%. All differences between techniques, wear locations, and wear time protocols were statistically different (P < 0.05). Mean minutes per day in physical activity varied from 22 to 67 depending on location and method. On the hip, the 1952-count cut point found at least 150 min·wk of physical activity in 22% of participants, raw vector magnitude found 32%, and the machine-learned algorithm found 74% of participants with 150 min of walking/running per week. The wrist algorithms found 59% and 60% of participants with 150 min of physical activity per week using the raw vector magnitude and machine-learned techniques, respectively. When the wrist device was worn overnight, up to 4% more participants met guidelines. CONCLUSION: Estimates varied by 52% across techniques and by as much as 41% across wear locations. Findings suggest that researchers should be cautious when comparing physical activity estimates from different studies. Efforts to standardize accelerometry-based estimates of physical activity are needed. A first step might be to report on multiple procedures until a consensus is achieved.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare physical activity estimates across different accelerometer wear locations, wear time protocols, and data processing techniques. METHODS: A convenience sample of middle-age to older women wore a GT3X+ accelerometer at the wrist and hip for 7 d. Physical activity estimates were calculated using three data processing techniques: single-axis cut points, raw vector magnitude thresholds, and machine learning algorithms applied to the raw data from the three axes. Daily estimates were compared for the 321 women using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 1420 d were analyzed. Compliance rates for the hip versus wrist location only varied by 2.7%. All differences between techniques, wear locations, and wear time protocols were statistically different (P < 0.05). Mean minutes per day in physical activity varied from 22 to 67 depending on location and method. On the hip, the 1952-count cut point found at least 150 min·wk of physical activity in 22% of participants, raw vector magnitude found 32%, and the machine-learned algorithm found 74% of participants with 150 min of walking/running per week. The wrist algorithms found 59% and 60% of participants with 150 min of physical activity per week using the raw vector magnitude and machine-learned techniques, respectively. When the wrist device was worn overnight, up to 4% more participants met guidelines. CONCLUSION: Estimates varied by 52% across techniques and by as much as 41% across wear locations. Findings suggest that researchers should be cautious when comparing physical activity estimates from different studies. Efforts to standardize accelerometry-based estimates of physical activity are needed. A first step might be to report on multiple procedures until a consensus is achieved.
Authors: Kong Y Chen; Sari A Acra; Karen Majchrzak; Candice L Donahue; Lemont Baker; Linda Clemens; Ming Sun; Maciej S Buchowski Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2003 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Melanie Zinkhan; Klaus Berger; Sabrina Hense; Maren Nagel; Anne Obst; Beate Koch; Thomas Penzel; Ingo Fietze; Wolfgang Ahrens; Peter Young; Svenja Happe; Jan W Kantelhardt; Alexander Kluttig; Andrea Schmidt-Pokrzywniak; Frank Pillmann; Andreas Stang Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.492
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
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Vincent T van Hees; Lukas Gorzelniak; Emmanuel Carlos Dean León; Martin Eder; Marcelo Pias; Salman Taherian; Ulf Ekelund; Frida Renström; Paul W Franks; Alexander Horsch; Søren Brage Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Peter James; Jaime E Hart; J Aaron Hipp; Jonathan A Mitchell; Jacqueline Kerr; Philip M Hurvitz; Karen Glanz; Francine Laden Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tianyi Huang; Claudia Trudel-Fitzgerald; Elizabeth M Poole; Sherylin Sawyer; Laura D Kubzansky; Susan E Hankinson; Olivia I Okereke; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Sandahl H Nelson; Loki Natarajan; Ruth E Patterson; Sheri J Hartman; Caroline A Thompson; Suneeta V Godbole; Eileen Johnson; Catherine R Marinac; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2019-05-01
Authors: Jonathan A Mitchell; Mirja Quante; Suneeta Godbole; Peter James; J Aaron Hipp; Catherine R Marinac; Sara Mariani; Elizabeth M Cespedes Feliciano; Karen Glanz; Francine Laden; Rui Wang; Jia Weng; Susan Redline; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Chronobiol Int Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 2.877
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
Authors: Matthew T Stewart; Taylor Nezich; Joyce M Lee; Rebecca E Hasson; Natalie Colabianchi Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Stephen Barrett; Stephen Begg; Paul O Halloran; Michael Kingsley Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 3.390