Literature DB >> 28107205

Comparison of linear and non-linear models for predicting energy expenditure from raw accelerometer data.

Alexander H K Montoye1, Munni Begum, Zachary Henning, Karin A Pfeiffer.   

Abstract

This study had three purposes, all related to evaluating energy expenditure (EE) prediction accuracy from body-worn accelerometers: (1) compare linear regression to linear mixed models, (2) compare linear models to artificial neural network models, and (3) compare accuracy of accelerometers placed on the hip, thigh, and wrists. Forty individuals performed 13 activities in a 90 min semi-structured, laboratory-based protocol. Participants wore accelerometers on the right hip, right thigh, and both wrists and a portable metabolic analyzer (EE criterion). Four EE prediction models were developed for each accelerometer: linear regression, linear mixed, and two ANN models. EE prediction accuracy was assessed using correlations, root mean square error (RMSE), and bias and was compared across models and accelerometers using repeated-measures analysis of variance. For all accelerometer placements, there were no significant differences for correlations or RMSE between linear regression and linear mixed models (correlations: r  =  0.71-0.88, RMSE: 1.11-1.61 METs; p  >  0.05). For the thigh-worn accelerometer, there were no differences in correlations or RMSE between linear and ANN models (ANN-correlations: r  =  0.89, RMSE: 1.07-1.08 METs. Linear models-correlations: r  =  0.88, RMSE: 1.10-1.11 METs; p  >  0.05). Conversely, one ANN had higher correlations and lower RMSE than both linear models for the hip (ANN-correlation: r  =  0.88, RMSE: 1.12 METs. Linear models-correlations: r  =  0.86, RMSE: 1.18-1.19 METs; p  <  0.05), and both ANNs had higher correlations and lower RMSE than both linear models for the wrist-worn accelerometers (ANN-correlations: r  =  0.82-0.84, RMSE: 1.26-1.32 METs. Linear models-correlations: r  =  0.71-0.73, RMSE: 1.55-1.61 METs; p  <  0.01). For studies using wrist-worn accelerometers, machine learning models offer a significant improvement in EE prediction accuracy over linear models. Conversely, linear models showed similar EE prediction accuracy to machine learning models for hip- and thigh-worn accelerometers and may be viable alternative modeling techniques for EE prediction for hip- or thigh-worn accelerometers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28107205     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/38/2/343

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


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Ordinal Statistical Models of Physical Activity Levels from Accelerometer Data.

Authors:  Shafayet S Hossain; Drew M Lazar; Munni Begum
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2021-04-01

3.  Statistical machine learning of sleep and physical activity phenotypes from sensor data in 96,220 UK Biobank participants.

Authors:  Matthew Willetts; Sven Hollowell; Louis Aslett; Chris Holmes; Aiden Doherty
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Estimating energy expenditure from wrist and thigh accelerometry in free-living adults: a doubly labelled water study.

Authors:  Tom White; Kate Westgate; Stefanie Hollidge; Michelle Venables; Patrick Olivier; Nick Wareham; Soren Brage
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 5.095

5.  Measurement of Physical Activity by Shoe-Based Accelerometers-Calibration and Free-Living Validation.

Authors:  Jonatan Fridolfsson; Daniel Arvidsson; Stefan Grau
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 3.576

6.  Energy Expenditure Estimation of Tabata by Combining Acceleration and Heart Rate.

Authors:  Yiping Yan; Qingguo Chen
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-02-07

7.  A machine learning approach of predicting high potential archers by means of physical fitness indicators.

Authors:  Rabiu Muazu Musa; Anwar P P Abdul Majeed; Zahari Taha; Siow Wee Chang; Ahmad Fakhri Ab Nasir; Mohamad Razali Abdullah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Calibration and validation of accelerometry to measure physical activity in adult clinical groups: A systematic review.

Authors:  Mayara S Bianchim; Melitta A McNarry; Lillebeth Larun; Kelly A Mackintosh
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2019-11-06

9.  Comparison of the Validity and Generalizability of Machine Learning Algorithms for the Prediction of Energy Expenditure: Validation Study.

Authors:  Ruairi O'Driscoll; Jake Turicchi; Mark Hopkins; Cristiana Duarte; Graham W Horgan; Graham Finlayson; R James Stubbs
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.773

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.