ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2021
Validation of Wearable Camera Still Images to Assess Posture in Free-Living Conditions.
Article in Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour, 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.
- Reducing annotation burden in physical activity research using vision language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- CAPTURE-24: A large dataset of wrist-worn activity tracker data collected in the wild for human activity recognition.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Update and Novel Validation of a Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire.American journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the convergent validity of body worn wearable camera (WC) still-images (IMGs) for determining posture compared with activPAL (AP) classifications.
methodsParticipants (n=16, mean age 46.7±23.8yrs, 9F) wore an Autographer WC above the xyphoid process and an AP during three, 2hr free-living visits. IMGs were captured on average 8.47 seconds apart and were annotated with output consisting of events, transitory states, unknown and gaps. Events were annotations that matched AP classifications (sit, stand and move) consisting of at least 3 IMGs, transitory states were posture annotations fewer than 3 IMGs, unknown were IMGs that could not be accurately classified, and gaps were time between annotations. For analyses, annotation and AP output were converted to one-sec epochs and matched second-by-second. Total and average length of visits and events are reported in minutes. Bias and 95% CIs for event posture times from IMGs to AP posture times were calculated to determine accuracy and precision. Confusion matrices using total AP posture times were computed to determine misclassification.
results43 visits were analyzed with a total visit and event time of 5027.73 and 4237.23 minutes and average visit and event lengths being 116.92 and 98.54 minutes, respectively. Bias was not statistically significant for sitting but significant for standing and movement (0.84, -6.87 and 6.04 minutes). From confusion matrices, IMGs correctly classified sitting, standing and movement 85.69%, 54.87%, and 69.41% of total AP time, respectively.
conclusionWC IMGs provide a good estimation of overall sitting time but underestimate standing and overestimate movement time. Future work is warranted to improve posture classifications and examine IMG accuracy and precision in assessing activity type behaviors.
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.