ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Machine Learning Algorithms for Activity-Intensity Recognition Using Accelerometer Data.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Activity of Daily Living Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review of Ambient, Wearable, and Fusion-Based Sensing Technologies.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Human Activity Recognition Based on Residual Network and BiLSTM.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clinical human activity recognition based on a wearable patch of combined tri-axial ACC and ECG sensors.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In pervasive healthcare monitoring, activity recognition is critical information for adequate management of the patient. Despite the great number of studies on this topic, a contextually relevant parameter that has received less attention is intensity recognition. In the present study, we investigated the potential advantage of coupling activity and intensity, namely, Activity-Intensity, in accelerometer data to improve the description of daily activities of individuals. We further tested two alternatives for supervised classification. In the first alternative, the activity and intensity are inferred together by applying a single classifier algorithm. In the other alternative, the activity and intensity are classified separately. In both cases, the algorithms used for classification are k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF). The results showed the viability of the classification with good accuracy for Activity-Intensity recognition. The best approach was KNN implemented in the single classifier alternative, which resulted in 79% of accuracy. Using two classifiers, the result was 97% accuracy for activity recognition (Random Forest), and 80% for intensity recognition (KNN), which resulted in 78% for activity-intensity coupled. These findings have potential applications to improve the contextualized evaluation of movement by health professionals in the form of a decision system with expert rules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.