Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27706241›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Intensity Thresholds on Raw Acceleration Data: Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO) and Mean Amplitude Deviation (MAD) Approaches.

Kishan Bakrania, Thomas Yates, Alex V Rowlands, Dale W Esliger, Sarah Bunnewell, James Sanders, Melanie Davies, Kamlesh Khunti, Charlotte L Edwardson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 172 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Intensity-specific physical activity and mortality in 147,414 adults: a pooled accelerometer analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kishan BakraniaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Thomas YatesDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Alex V RowlandsDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Dale W EsligerNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit (BRU), Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Sarah BunnewellDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
James SandersNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit (BRU), Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Melanie DaviesDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Kamlesh KhuntiDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Charlotte L EdwardsonDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Leicester General Hospital · GBNIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(1) To develop and internally-validate Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO) and Mean Amplitude Deviation (MAD) thresholds for separating sedentary behaviours from common light-intensity physical activities using raw acceleration data collected from both hip- and wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometers; and (2) to compare and evaluate the performances between the ENMO and MAD metrics.

methodsThirty-three adults [mean age (standard deviation (SD)) = 27.4 (5.9) years; mean BMI (SD) = 23.9 (3.7) kg/m2; 20 females (60.6%)] wore four accelerometers; an ActiGraph GT3X+ and a GENEActiv on the right hip; and an ActiGraph GT3X+ and a GENEActiv on the non-dominant wrist. Under laboratory-conditions, participants performed 16 different activities (11 sedentary behaviours and 5 light-intensity physical activities) for 5 minutes each. ENMO and MAD were computed from the raw acceleration data, and logistic regression and receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analyses were implemented to derive thresholds for activity discrimination. Areas under ROC curves (AUROC) were calculated to summarise performances and thresholds were assessed via executing leave-one-out-cross-validations.

resultsFor both hip and wrist monitor placements, in comparison to the ActiGraph GT3X+ monitors, the ENMO and MAD values derived from the GENEActiv devices were observed to be slightly higher, particularly for the lower-intensity activities. Monitor-specific hip and wrist ENMO and MAD thresholds showed excellent ability for separating sedentary behaviours from motion-based light-intensity physical activities (in general, AUROCs >0.95), with validation indicating robustness. However, poor classification was experienced when attempting to isolate standing still from sedentary behaviours (in general, AUROCs <0.65). The ENMO and MAD metrics tended to perform similarly across activities and accelerometer brands.

conclusionsResearchers can utilise these robust monitor-specific hip and wrist ENMO and MAD thresholds, in order to accurately separate sedentary behaviours from common motion-based light-intensity physical activities. However, caution should be taken if isolating sedentary behaviours from standing is of particular interest.

Indexed as

AccelerometryActigraphyAdultExerciseFemaleHipHumansMalePostureROC CurveSedentary BehaviorWristYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27706241
PMCPMC5051724
OpenAlexW2528042246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.