PURPOSE: Machine learning methods could better improve the detection of specific types of physical activities and sedentary behaviors from accelerometer data. No studies in older populations have developed and tested algorithms for walking and sedentary time in free-living daily life. Our goal was to rectify this gap by leveraging access to data from two studies in older women. METHODS: In study 1, algorithms were developed and tested in a sample of older women (N = 39, age range = 55-96 yr) in the field. Women wore accelerometers and SenseCam (ground truth annotation) devices for 7 d, yielding 3191 h and 320 d of data. Images were annotated and time matched to accelerometer data, and random forest classifiers labeled behaviors (sitting, riding in a vehicle, standing still, standing moving, and walking/running). In study 2, we examined the concurrent validity of the algorithms using accelerometer data from an observed 400-m walk test (2983 min of data available) and 6 d of wearing both accelerometers and global positioning systems devices in a sample of 222 women (age range = 67-100; 313,290 min of data available). Analyses included sensitivity, specificity balanced accuracy, and precision, as appropriate, averaged over each test participant at the minute level for each behavior. RESULTS: In study 1, the algorithms had 82.2% balanced accuracy. In study 2, the classifier had 87.9% accuracy for predicting walking. Overall machine learning classifiers and global positioning systems had 88.6% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Free-living algorithms for walking and sedentary time yielded high levels of accuracy and concurrent validity and can be applied to existing accelerometer data from older women.
PURPOSE: Machine learning methods could better improve the detection of specific types of physical activities and sedentary behaviors from accelerometer data. No studies in older populations have developed and tested algorithms for walking and sedentary time in free-living daily life. Our goal was to rectify this gap by leveraging access to data from two studies in older women. METHODS: In study 1, algorithms were developed and tested in a sample of older women (N = 39, age range = 55-96 yr) in the field. Women wore accelerometers and SenseCam (ground truth annotation) devices for 7 d, yielding 3191 h and 320 d of data. Images were annotated and time matched to accelerometer data, and random forest classifiers labeled behaviors (sitting, riding in a vehicle, standing still, standing moving, and walking/running). In study 2, we examined the concurrent validity of the algorithms using accelerometer data from an observed 400-m walk test (2983 min of data available) and 6 d of wearing both accelerometers and global positioning systems devices in a sample of 222 women (age range = 67-100; 313,290 min of data available). Analyses included sensitivity, specificity balanced accuracy, and precision, as appropriate, averaged over each test participant at the minute level for each behavior. RESULTS: In study 1, the algorithms had 82.2% balanced accuracy. In study 2, the classifier had 87.9% accuracy for predicting walking. Overall machine learning classifiers and global positioning systems had 88.6% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Free-living algorithms for walking and sedentary time yielded high levels of accuracy and concurrent validity and can be applied to existing accelerometer data from older women.
Authors: J M Guralnik; L Ferrucci; C F Pieper; S G Leveille; K S Markides; G V Ostir; S Studenski; L F Berkman; R B Wallace Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stephen P Sayers; Jack M Guralnik; Anne B Newman; Jennifer S Brach; Roger A Fielding Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Jacqueline Kerr; Dori E Rosenberg; Andrea Nathan; Rachel A Millstein; Jordan A Carlson; Katie Crist; Kari Wasilenko; Khalisa Bolling; Cynthia M Castro; David M Buchner; Simon J Marshall Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Aiden R Doherty; Paul Kelly; Jacqueline Kerr; Simon Marshall; Melody Oliver; Hannah Badland; Alexander Hamilton; Charlie Foster Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Purva Jain; John Bellettiere; Nicole Glass; Michael J LaMonte; Chongzhi Di; Robert A Wild; Kelly R Evenson; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
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: Ya-Ju Chang; Fatima Tuz-Zahra; Suneeta Godbole; Yesenia Avitia; John Bellettiere; Cheryl L Rock; Marta M Jankowska; Matthew A Allison; David W Dunstan; Brinda Rana; Loki Natarajan; Dorothy D Sears Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Kristiann C Heesch; Robert L Hill; Nicolas Aguilar-Farias; Jannique G Z van Uffelen; Toby Pavey Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Arindam Dutta; Owen Ma; Meynard Toledo; Alberto Florez Pregonero; Barbara E Ainsworth; Matthew P Buman; Daniel W Bliss Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Dafne van Kuppevelt; Joe Heywood; Mark Hamer; Séverine Sabia; Emla Fitzsimons; Vincent van Hees Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Michelle Takemoto; Todd M Manini; Dori E Rosenberg; Amanda Lazar; Zvinka Z Zlatar; Sai Krupa Das; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.043