Literature DB >> 29369742

Cross-validation and out-of-sample testing of physical activity intensity predictions with a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Alexander H K Montoye1,2, Bradford S Westgate3, Morgan R Fonley3, Karin A Pfeiffer4.   

Abstract

Wrist-worn accelerometers are gaining popularity for measurement of physical activity. However, few methods for predicting physical activity intensity from wrist-worn accelerometer data have been tested on data not used to create the methods (out-of-sample data). This study utilized two previously collected data sets [Ball State University (BSU) and Michigan State University (MSU)] in which participants wore a GENEActiv accelerometer on the left wrist while performing sedentary, lifestyle, ambulatory, and exercise activities in simulated free-living settings. Activity intensity was determined via direct observation. Four machine learning models (plus 2 combination methods) and six feature sets were used to predict activity intensity (30-s intervals) with the accelerometer data. Leave-one-out cross-validation and out-of-sample testing were performed to evaluate accuracy in activity intensity prediction, and classification accuracies were used to determine differences among feature sets and machine learning models. In out-of-sample testing, the random forest model (77.3-78.5%) had higher accuracy than other machine learning models (70.9-76.4%) and accuracy similar to combination methods (77.0-77.9%). Feature sets utilizing frequency-domain features had improved accuracy over other feature sets in leave-one-out cross-validation (92.6-92.8% vs. 87.8-91.9% in MSU data set; 79.3-80.2% vs. 76.7-78.4% in BSU data set) but similar or worse accuracy in out-of-sample testing (74.0-77.4% vs. 74.1-79.1% in MSU data set; 76.1-77.0% vs. 75.5-77.3% in BSU data set). All machine learning models outperformed the euclidean norm minus one/GGIR method in out-of-sample testing (69.5-78.5% vs. 53.6-70.6%). From these results, we recommend out-of-sample testing to confirm generalizability of machine learning models. Additionally, random forest models and feature sets with only time-domain features provided the best accuracy for activity intensity prediction from a wrist-worn accelerometer. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study includes in-sample and out-of-sample cross-validation of an alternate method for deriving meaningful physical activity outcomes from accelerometer data collected with a wrist-worn accelerometer. This method uses machine learning to directly predict activity intensity. By so doing, this study provides a classification model that may avoid high errors present with energy expenditure prediction while still allowing researchers to assess adherence to physical activity guidelines.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GENEActiv; artificial neural network; decision tree; random forest; support vector machine

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29369742     DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00760.2017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)        ISSN: 0161-7567


  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Workplace activity classification from shoe-based movement sensors.

Authors:  Jonatan Fridolfsson; Daniel Arvidsson; Frithjof Doerks; Theresa J Kreidler; Stefan Grau
Journal:  BMC Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-06-24

Review 3.  Assessment of Physical Activity in Adults Using Wrist Accelerometers.

Authors:  Fangyu Liu; Amal A Wanigatunga; Jennifer A Schrack
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 4.280

4.  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

5.  A Comparative Study on the Influence of Undersampling and Oversampling Techniques for the Classification of Physical Activities Using an Imbalanced Accelerometer Dataset.

Authors:  Dong-Hwa Jeong; Se-Eun Kim; Woo-Hyeok Choi; Seong-Ho Ahn
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-05

6.  Reallocation of time between device-measured movement behaviours and risk of incident cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Derrick Bennett; Aiden Doherty; Rosemary Walmsley; Shing Chan; Karl Smith-Byrne; Rema Ramakrishnan; Mark Woodward; Kazem Rahimi; Terence Dwyer
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 18.473

7.  How Accurate and Precise Can We Measure the Posture and the Energy Expenditure Component of Sedentary Behaviour with One Sensor?

Authors:  Roman P Kuster; Wilhelmus J A Grooten; Victoria Blom; Daniel Baumgartner; Maria Hagströmer; Örjan Ekblom
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Towards a Portable Model to Discriminate Activity Clusters from Accelerometer Data.

Authors:  Petra Jones; Evgeny M Mirkes; Tom Yates; Charlotte L Edwardson; Mike Catt; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Alex V Rowlands
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.