Andrew Leroux1,2, Shiyao Xu1, Prosenjit Kundu1, John Muschelli1, Ekaterina Smirnova3, Nilanjan Chatterjee1, Ciprian Crainiceanu1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Biostatistics & Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora. 3. Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Objective measures of physical activity (PA) derived from wrist-worn accelerometers are compared with traditional risk factors in terms of mortality prediction performance in the UK Biobank. METHOD: A subset of participants in the UK Biobank study wore a tri-axial wrist-worn accelerometer in a free-living environment for up to 7 days. A total of 82 304 individuals over the age of 50 (439 707 person-years of follow-up, 1959 deaths) had both accelerometry data that met specified quality criteria and complete data on a set of traditional mortality risk factors. Predictive performance was assessed using cross-validated Concordance (C) for Cox regression models. Forward selection was used to obtain a set of best predictors of mortality. RESULTS: In univariate Cox regression, age was the best predictor of all-cause mortality (C = 0.681) followed by 12 PA predictors, led by minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (C = 0.661) and total acceleration (C = 0.661). Overall, 16 of the top 20 predictors were objective PA measures (C = 0.578-0.661). Using a threshold of 0.001 improvement in Concordance, the Concordance for the best model that did not include PA measures was 0.735 (9 covariates) compared with 0.748 (12 covariates) for the best model with PA variables (p-value < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Objective measures of PA derived from accelerometry outperform traditional predictors of all-cause mortality in the UK Biobank except age and substantially improve the prediction performance of mortality models based on traditional risk factors. Results confirm and complement previous findings in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
BACKGROUND: Objective measures of physical activity (PA) derived from wrist-worn accelerometers are compared with traditional risk factors in terms of mortality prediction performance in the UK Biobank. METHOD: A subset of participants in the UK Biobank study wore a tri-axial wrist-worn accelerometer in a free-living environment for up to 7 days. A total of 82 304 individuals over the age of 50 (439 707 person-years of follow-up, 1959 deaths) had both accelerometry data that met specified quality criteria and complete data on a set of traditional mortality risk factors. Predictive performance was assessed using cross-validated Concordance (C) for Cox regression models. Forward selection was used to obtain a set of best predictors of mortality. RESULTS: In univariate Cox regression, age was the best predictor of all-cause mortality (C = 0.681) followed by 12 PA predictors, led by minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (C = 0.661) and total acceleration (C = 0.661). Overall, 16 of the top 20 predictors were objective PA measures (C = 0.578-0.661). Using a threshold of 0.001 improvement in Concordance, the Concordance for the best model that did not include PA measures was 0.735 (9 covariates) compared with 0.748 (12 covariates) for the best model with PA variables (p-value < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Objective measures of PA derived from accelerometry outperform traditional predictors of all-cause mortality in the UK Biobank except age and substantially improve the prediction performance of mortality models based on traditional risk factors. Results confirm and complement previous findings in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Authors: Gregory J Tranah; Terri Blackwell; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Misti L Paudel; Kristine E Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; Susan Redline; Teresa A Hillier; Steven R Cummings; Katie L Stone Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jamie M Zeitzer; Terri Blackwell; Andrew R Hoffman; Steve Cummings; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Katie Stone Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Michael J LaMonte; David M Buchner; Eileen Rillamas-Sun; Chongzhi Di; Kelley R Evenson; John Bellettiere; Cora E Lewis; I-Min Lee; Lesly F Tinker; Rebecca Seguin; Oleg Zaslovsky; Charles B Eaton; Marcia L Stefanick; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Laura M Lyall; Cathy A Wyse; Nicholas Graham; Amy Ferguson; Donald M Lyall; Breda Cullen; Carlos A Celis Morales; Stephany M Biello; Daniel Mackay; Joey Ward; Rona J Strawbridge; Jason M R Gill; Mark E S Bailey; Jill P Pell; Daniel J Smith Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Séverine Sabia; Vincent T van Hees; Martin J Shipley; Michael I Trenell; Gareth Hagger-Johnson; Alexis Elbaz; Mika Kivimaki; Archana Singh-Manoux Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Lloyd T Elliott; Kevin Sharp; Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Sinan Shi; Karla L Miller; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Jonathan Marchini; Stephen M Smith Journal: Nature Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Clare Bycroft; Colin Freeman; Desislava Petkova; Gavin Band; Lloyd T Elliott; Kevin Sharp; Allan Motyer; Damjan Vukcevic; Olivier Delaneau; Jared O'Connell; Adrian Cortes; Samantha Welsh; Alan Young; Mark Effingham; Gil McVean; Stephen Leslie; Naomi Allen; Peter Donnelly; Jonathan Marchini Journal: Nature Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marta Karas; John Muschelli; Andrew Leroux; Jacek K Urbanek; Amal A Wanigatunga; Jiawei Bai; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Jennifer A Schrack Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 4.947