ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Comparison of the Validity and Generalizability of Machine Learning Algorithms for the Prediction of Energy Expenditure: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do eating behavior traits predict energy intake and body mass index? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2023Pooled it
- Cleaning and pre-processing of actigraphy data for physical activity and sleep research: a scoping review.Physiological measurement · 2026Article
- Rethinking Energy Availability from Conceptual Models to Applied Practice: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Machine and Deep Learning for Detection of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity From Accelerometer Data: Systematic Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Predicting physical activity energy expenditure, types, and intensity using long short-term memory networks in aged 6-18 cross-stage populations.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- From past to future: a review of methods for assessing physical activity energy expenditure.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a smartwatch algorithm for differentiating physical activity intensity in health monitoring.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Safely and autonomously cutting meat with a collaborative robot arm.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Floating Epoch Length Improves the Accuracy of Accelerometry-Based Estimation of Coincident Oxygen Consumption.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Physical Activity Pattern of Adults With Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factors: Time-Series Cluster Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Diet composition and energy intake in humans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- An Explainable Artificial Intelligence Software Tool for Weight Management Experts (PRIMO): Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Predicting stroke and mortality in mitral stenosis with atrial flutter: A machine learning approach.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023Article
- Estimating Physical Activity and Sleep using the Combination of Movement and Heart Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of exercise science · 2023Review
- Personalized Energy Expenditure Estimation: Visual Sensing Approach With Deep Learning.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate solutions for the estimation of physical activity and energy expenditure at scale are needed for a range of medical and health research fields. Machine learning techniques show promise in research-grade accelerometers, and some evidence indicates that these techniques can be applied to more scalable commercial devices.
objectiveThis study aims to test the validity and out-of-sample generalizability of algorithms for the prediction of energy expenditure in several wearables (ie, Fitbit Charge 2, ActiGraph GT3-x, SenseWear Armband Mini, and Polar H7) using two laboratory data sets comprising different activities.
methodsTwo laboratory studies (study 1: n=59, age 44.4 years, weight 75.7 kg; study 2: n=30, age=31.9 years, weight=70.6 kg), in which adult participants performed a sequential lab-based activity protocol consisting of resting, household, ambulatory, and nonambulatory tasks, were combined in this study. In both studies, accelerometer and physiological data were collected from the wearables alongside energy expenditure using indirect calorimetry. Three regression algorithms were used to predict metabolic equivalents (METs; ie, random forest, gradient boosting, and neural networks), and five classification algorithms (ie, k-nearest neighbor, support vector machine, random forest, gradient boosting, and neural networks) were used for physical activity intensity classification as sedentary, light, or moderate to vigorous. Algorithms were evaluated using leave-one-subject-out cross-validations and out-of-sample validations.
resultsThe root mean square error (RMSE) was lowest for gradient boosting applied to SenseWear and Polar H7 data (0.91 METs), and in the classification task, gradient boost applied to SenseWear and Polar H7 was the most accurate (85.5%). Fitbit models achieved an RMSE of 1.36 METs and 78.2% accuracy for classification. Errors tended to increase in out-of-sample validations with the SenseWear neural network achieving RMSE values of 1.22 METs in the regression tasks and the SenseWear gradient boost and random forest achieving an accuracy of 80% in classification tasks.
conclusionsAlgorithms trained on combined data sets demonstrated high predictive accuracy, with a tendency for superior performance of random forests and gradient boosting for most but not all wearable devices. Predictions were poorer in the between-study validations, which creates uncertainty regarding the generalizability of the tested algorithms.
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.