ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2021
Validity of a Global Positioning System-Based Algorithm and Consumer Wearables for Classifying Active Trips in Children and Adults.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impacts of zero-fare transit policy on health and social determinants: protocol for a natural experiment study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the convergent validity of a global positioning system (GPS)-based and two consumer-based measures with trip logs for classifying pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips in children and adults. Methods: Participants ( Results: The PALMS identified and correctly classified the mode of 75.6%, 94.5%, and 96.9% of pedestrian, cycling, and vehicle trips (84.5% of active trips, F1 = 0.84 and 0.87) as compared with the log. Fitbit and Garmin identified and correctly classified the mode of 26.8% and 17.8% (22.6% of active trips, F1 = 0.40 and 0.30) and 46.3% and 43.8% (45.2% of active trips, F1 = 0.58 and 0.59) of pedestrian and cycling trips. Garmin was more prone to false positives (false trips not logged). Day-level agreement for PALMS and Garmin versus logs was favorable across trip modes, though PALMS performed best. Fitbit significantly underestimated daily cycling. Results were similar but slightly less favorable for children than adults. Conclusions: The PALMS showed good convergent validity in children and adults and were about 50% and 27% more accurate than Fitbit and Garmin (based on F1). Empirically-based recommendations for improving PALMS' pedestrian classification are provided. Since the consumer devices capture both indoor and outdoor walking/running and cycling, they are less appropriate for trip-based research.
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.