Kara M Whitaker1, Kelley Pettee Gabriel2, David R Jacobs3, Stephen Sidney4, Barbara Sternfeld4. 1. Division of Health and Human Physiology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, School of Public Health-Austin Campus, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Austin, TX Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 4. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the comparability of the ActiGraph 7164 and wGT3X-BT wear time, count-based estimates, and average time per day in physical activity of different intensities. METHODS: We studied 87 Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) participants 48-60 yr of age who simultaneously wore the 7164 and wGT3X-BT accelerometers at the waist in 2015-2016, with wear time of ≥4 of 7 d, ≥10 h·d for both monitors. Freedson cutpoints (counts per minute) were used to define sedentary (<100), light (100-1951), moderate (1952-5724), and vigorous activity (≥5725). Agreement was evaluated using paired-difference tests, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. Given systematic differences in count-based estimates between monitors, a calibration formula applied to the wGT3X-BT values was obtained by linear regression. RESULTS: Total detected wear time minutes per day was nearly identical between the 7164 and the wGT3X-BT (881.5 ± 70.9 vs 880.3 ± 78.1, P = 0.72). The wGT3X-BT values were calibrated to the 7164 values by dividing counts by 1.088. After calibration, no differences were observed between the 7164 and the wGT3X-BT in total counts per day (310,184 ± 129,189 vs 307,085 ± 135,362, P = 0.48), average counts per min per day (349.5 ± 139.5 vs 346.5 ± 147.2, P = 0.54), sedentary (513.2 ± 93.6 vs 509.6 ± 98.6, P = 0.23), light (335.3 ± 81.5 vs 338.7 ± 81.1, P = 0.22), moderate (31.0 ± 21.9 vs 30.3 ± 23.4, P = 0.31), or moderate-to-vigorous minutes per day (33.1 ± 24.6 vs 32.0 ± 26.0, P = 0.13). A significant difference was observed for vigorous minutes per day (0.2 ± 1.0 vs 0.0 ± 0.3, P < 0.01); however, the absolute difference was marginal. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed excellent agreement for all measures (0.95-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: After applying a calibration formula, the 7164 and wGT3X-BT were comparable for total wear time, count-based estimates, and average minutes per day in sedentary, light, moderate, and moderate-to-vigorous activity. Findings illustrate a novel methodological approach to facilitate accelerometer data harmonization.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the comparability of the ActiGraph 7164 and wGT3X-BT wear time, count-based estimates, and average time per day in physical activity of different intensities. METHODS: We studied 87 Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) participants 48-60 yr of age who simultaneously wore the 7164 and wGT3X-BT accelerometers at the waist in 2015-2016, with wear time of ≥4 of 7 d, ≥10 h·d for both monitors. Freedson cutpoints (counts per minute) were used to define sedentary (<100), light (100-1951), moderate (1952-5724), and vigorous activity (≥5725). Agreement was evaluated using paired-difference tests, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. Given systematic differences in count-based estimates between monitors, a calibration formula applied to the wGT3X-BT values was obtained by linear regression. RESULTS: Total detected wear time minutes per day was nearly identical between the 7164 and the wGT3X-BT (881.5 ± 70.9 vs 880.3 ± 78.1, P = 0.72). The wGT3X-BT values were calibrated to the 7164 values by dividing counts by 1.088. After calibration, no differences were observed between the 7164 and the wGT3X-BT in total counts per day (310,184 ± 129,189 vs 307,085 ± 135,362, P = 0.48), average counts per min per day (349.5 ± 139.5 vs 346.5 ± 147.2, P = 0.54), sedentary (513.2 ± 93.6 vs 509.6 ± 98.6, P = 0.23), light (335.3 ± 81.5 vs 338.7 ± 81.1, P = 0.22), moderate (31.0 ± 21.9 vs 30.3 ± 23.4, P = 0.31), or moderate-to-vigorous minutes per day (33.1 ± 24.6 vs 32.0 ± 26.0, P = 0.13). A significant difference was observed for vigorous minutes per day (0.2 ± 1.0 vs 0.0 ± 0.3, P < 0.01); however, the absolute difference was marginal. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed excellent agreement for all measures (0.95-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: After applying a calibration formula, the 7164 and wGT3X-BT were comparable for total wear time, count-based estimates, and average minutes per day in sedentary, light, moderate, and moderate-to-vigorous activity. Findings illustrate a novel methodological approach to facilitate accelerometer data harmonization.
Authors: L E Wagenknecht; G R Cutter; N J Haley; S Sidney; T A Manolio; G H Hughes; D R Jacobs Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 9.308
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: G D Friedman; G R Cutter; R P Donahue; G H Hughes; S B Hulley; D R Jacobs; K Liu; P J Savage Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1988 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Mathias Ried-Larsen; Jan Christian Brønd; Søren Brage; Bjørge Herman Hansen; May Grydeland; Lars Bo Andersen; Niels Christian Møller Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Niels C Moeller; Lars Korsholm; Peter L Kristensen; Lars B Andersen; Niels Wedderkopp; Karsten Froberg Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Ali Neishabouri; Joe Nguyen; John Samuelsson; Tyler Guthrie; Matt Biggs; Jeremy Wyatt; Doug Cross; Marta Karas; Jairo H Migueles; Sheraz Khan; Christine C Guo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Kelsie M Full; Kara M Whitaker; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Cora E Lewis; Barbara Sternfeld; Stephen Sidney; Jared P Reis; David R Jacobs; Bethany Barone Gibbs; Pamela J Schreiner Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Kara M Whitaker; Qian Xiao; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Penny Gordon Larsen; David R Jacobs; Stephen Sidney; Jared P Reis; Bethany Barone Gibbs; Barbara Sternfeld; Kiarri Kershaw Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Kara M Whitaker; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Matthew P Buman; Mark A Pereira; David R Jacobs; Jared P Reis; Bethany Barone Gibbs; Mercedes R Carnethon; John Staudenmayer; Stephen Sidney; Barbara Sternfeld Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Johanneke Hartog; Fredrike Blokzijl; Sandra Dijkstra; Mike J L DeJongste; Michiel F Reneman; Willem Dieperink; Iwan C C van der Horst; Joke Fleer; Lucas H V van der Woude; Pim van der Harst; Massimo A Mariani Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kara M Whitaker; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Deepika Laddu; Daniel K White; Stephen Sidney; Barbara Sternfeld; Cora E Lewis; David R Jacobs Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Bethany Barone Gibbs; Barbara Sternfeld; Kara M Whitaker; Jennifer S Brach; Andrea L Hergenroeder; David R Jacobs; Jared P Reis; Stephen Sidney; Daniel White; Kelley Pettee Gabriel Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Stephen Sidney; David R Jacobs; Kara M Whitaker; Mercedes R Carnethon; Cora E Lewis; Pamela J Schreiner; Raja I Malkani; James M Shikany; Jared P Reis; Barbara Sternfeld Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 5.363