ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Reliability Study of Inertial Sensors LIS2DH12 Compared to ActiGraph GT9X: Based on Free Code.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Information-Driven Approach for the Early Health Technology Sustainability Assessment and the Frugal Design of the Internet of Medical Things: Exploratory Study of Wearable Activity Monitoring Devices.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Bioinformatics-Inspired IMU Stride Sequence Modeling for Fatigue Detection Using Spectral-Entropy Features and Hybrid AI in Performance Sports.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- AI-Assisted Fatigue and Stamina Control for Performance Sports on IMU-Generated Multivariate Times Series Datasets.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Machine Learning on Prediction of Relative Physical Activity Intensity Using Medical Radar Sensor and 3D Accelerometer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
14 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The study’s purpose was to assess the reliability of the LIS2DH12 in two different positions, using the commercial sensor Actigraph GT9X as a reference instrument. Five participants completed two gait tests on a treadmill. Firstly, both sensors were worn on the wrist and around the thigh. Each test consisted of a 1 min walk for participants to become accustomed to the treadmill, followed by a 2 min trial at ten pre-set speeds. Data from both sensors were collected in real-time. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the equality of characteristics obtained by both sensors: maximum peaks, minimum peaks, and the mean of the complete signal (sequence of acceleration values along the time) by each axis and speed were extracted to evaluate the equality of characteristics obtained with LIS2DH12 compared to Actigraph. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was extracted, and a standard deviation of the mean was obtained from the data. Our results show that LIS2DH12 measurements present more reliability than Actigraph GT9X, ICC > 0.8 at three axes. This study concludes that LIS2DH12 is as reliable and accurate as Actigraph GT9X Link and, therefore, would be a suitable tool for future kinematic studies.
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.