Dataset Information

Accelerometry analysis options produce large differences in lifestyle physical activity measurement.

ABSTRACT: Objective measurement of physical activity (PA) using accelerometers has become increasingly popular across recreational and clinical applications. However, the effects of multiple processing algorithms, filters, and corrections on PA measurement variability may be underappreciated.

Objective

To examine how lifestyle PA estimates are impacted by multiple available scoring methods.

Approach

Wrist-worn accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X+) were worn by 132 adults (87 F) having various activity levels for one week. Lifestyle PA was assessed across four PA domains: daily energy expenditure (EE); active EE; moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA); and steps using 1-5 algorithms per domain, with/without wrist correction and low-frequency-extension (LFE). Estimates were compared to self-report (International Physical Activity Questionnaire).

Main results

PA estimates differed between algorithms with variable but frequently large effect sizes (d = 0.08-1.88). The wrist correction reduced PA estimates across all domains (p < 0.05, d = 0.26-3.04) except step counts and one daily EE algorithm (d = 0.0). Conversely, the LFE increased step counts (d = 1.44, p < 0.05) but minimally affected all other outcomes (d = 0.08-0.20, p < 0.05). Correlations between objective and self-reported PA were small to moderate (ρ = 0.22-0.45) and decreased with the wrist correction.

Significance

Measurement of PA using accelerometry is highly dependent on algorithm and filter selection; previously validated methods are therefore not interchangeable. Users should take caution when interpreting absolute PA estimates, and reporting standards should require detailed methodology disclosure to optimize comparisons across studies.

SUBMITTER: Mueller M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8182644 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceVigorous physical activity (VPA) is a time-efficient way to achieve recommended physical activity (PA) for cancer prevention, although structured longer bouts of VPA (via traditional exercise) are unappealing or inaccessible to many individuals.ObjectivesTo evaluate the dose-response association of device-measured daily vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity (VILPA) with incident cancer, and to estimate the minimal dose required for a risk reduction of 50% of the maximum reduction.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a prospective cohort analysis of 22 398 self-reported nonexercising adults from the UK Biobank accelerometry subsample. Participants were followed up through October 30, 2021 (mortality and hospitalizations), or June 30, 2021 (cancer registrations).ExposuresDaily VILPA of up to 1 and up to 2 minutes, assessed by accelerometers worn on participants' dominant wrist.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of total cancer and PA-related cancer (a composite outcome of 13 cancer sites associated with low PA levels). Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were estimated using cubic splines adjusted for age, sex, education level, smoking status, alcohol consumption, sleep duration, fruit and vegetable consumption, parental cancer history, light- and moderate-intensity PA, and VPA from bouts of more than 1 or 2 minute(s), as appropriate.ResultsThe study sample comprised 22 398 participants (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [7.6] years; 10 122 [45.2%] men and 12 276 [54.8%] women; 21 509 [96.0%] White individuals). During a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.7 (1.2) years (149 650 person-years), 2356 total incident cancer events occurred, 1084 owing to PA-related cancer. Almost all (92.3%) of VILPA was accrued in bouts of up to 1 minute. Daily VILPA duration was associated with outcomes in a near-linear manner, with steeper dose-response curves for PA-related cancer than total cancer incidence. Compared with no VILPA, the median daily VILPA duration of bouts up to 1 minute (4.5 minutes per day) was associated with an HR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92) for total cancer and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.86) for PA-related cancer. The minimal dose was 3.4 minutes per day for total (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93) and 3.7 minutes for PA-related (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88) cancer incidence. Findings were similar for VILPA bout of up to 2 minutes.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this prospective cohort study indicate that small amounts of VILPA were associated with lower incident cancer risk. Daily VILPA may be a promising intervention for cancer prevention in populations not able or motivated to exercise in leisure time.

Project description:Background: Mobility impairment is common in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and can be assessed with clinical tests and surveys that have restricted ecological validity. Commercial research-based accelerometers are considered to be more valuable as they measure real-life mobility. Smartphone accelerometry might be an easily accessible alternative. Objective: To explore smartphone accelerometry in comparison to clinical tests, surveys, and a wrist-worn ActiGraph in pwMS and controls. Methods: Sixty-seven pwMS and 70 matched controls underwent mobility tests and surveys. Real-life data were collected with a smartphone and an ActiGraph over 7 days. We explored different smartphone metrics in a technical validation course and computed afterward correlation between ActiGraph (steps per minute), smartphone accelerometry (variance of vector magnitude), clinical tests, and surveys. We also determined the ability to separate between patients and controls as well as between different disability groups. Results: Based on the technical validation, we found the variance of the vector magnitude as a reliable estimate to discriminate wear time and no wear-time of the smartphone. Due to a further association with different activity levels, it was selected for real-life analyses. In the cross-sectional study, ActiGraph correlated moderately (r = 0.43, p < 0.05) with the smartphone but less with clinical tests (rho between |0.211| and |0.337|). Smartphone data showed stronger correlations with age (rho = -0.487) and clinical tests (rho between |0.565| and |0.605|). ActiGraph only differed between pwMS and controls (p < 0.001) but not between disability groups. At the same time, the smartphone showed differences between pwMS and controls, between RRMS and PP-/SPMS, and between participants with/without ambulatory impairment (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: Smartphone accelerometry provides better estimates of mobility and disability than a wrist-worn standard accelerometer in a free-living context for both controls and pwMS. Given the fact that no additional device is needed, smartphone accelerometry might be a convenient outcome of real-life ambulation in healthy individuals and chronic diseases such as MS.