Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35417492›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Device-based measurement of physical activity in pre-schoolers: Comparison of machine learning and cut point methods.

Matthew N Ahmadi, Stewart G Trost

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Compositional movement behaviours and preschool children's social-emotional development.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Developmental trends in young children's device-measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew N AhmadiCharles Perkins Centre, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Stewart G TrostSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9587-3944
Queensland University of Technology · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMachine learning (ML) accelerometer data processing methods have potential to improve the accuracy of device-based assessments of physical activity (PA) in young children. Yet the uptake of ML methods by health researchers has been minimal and the use of cut-points (CP) continues to be the norm, despite evidence of significant misclassification error. The lack of studies demonstrating a relative advantage for ML approaches over CP methods maybe a key contributing factor. PURPOSE: The current study compared the accuracy of PA intensity predictions provided by ML classification models and previously published CPs for preschool-aged children.

methodsIn a free-living study, 31 preschool-aged children (mean age = 4.0 ± 0.9 y) wore wrist and hip ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers while completing a video recorded 20-minute free play session. Ground truth PA intensity was coded continuously using the Children's Activity Rating Scale (CARS). Accelerometer data was classified as sedentary (SED), light intensity (LPA), or moderate-to-vigorous intensity (MVPA) using ML random forest PA classifiers and published CPs for preschool-aged children. Performance differences were evaluated in a hold-out sample by comparing weighted kappa statistics, classification accuracy for each intensity band, and equivalence testing.

resultsML classification models (hip: κ = 0.76; wrist: κ = 0.72) exhibited significantly higher agreement with ground truth PA intensity than CP methods (hip: κ = 0.38-0.49; wrist: κ = 0.31-0.44). For the ML models, classification accuracy for SED and LPA ranged from 83% - 88%, while classification accuracy for MVPA ranged from 68% - 78%. For the CP's, classification accuracy ranged from 50% - 94% for SED, 19% - 75% for LPA, and 44% - 76.1% for MVPA. ML classification models showed equivalence (within ± 0.5 SD) with directly observed time in SED, LPA, and MVPA. None of the CP's exhibited evidence of equivalence.

conclusionsUnder free living conditions, ML classification models for hip or wrist accelerometer data provide more accurate assessments of PA intensity in young children than CP methods. The results demonstrate the relative advantage of ML methods over threshold-based approaches and adds to a growing evidence base supporting the feasibility and accuracy of ML accelerometer data processing methods.

Indexed as

AccelerometryExerciseChildChild, PreschoolHumansMachine LearningUpper ExtremityWrist

Identifiers

PMID35417492
PMCPMC9007358
OpenAlexW4223898498

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.