ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2022
Calibration of an Accelerometer Activity Index among Older Women and Its Association with Cardiometabolic Risk Factors.
Article in Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sitting time and risk of cancer incidence and cancer mortality in postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Accelerometry Collaboration.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Accelerometer-measured physical activity, sedentary behavior, and mortality among cancer survivors: the Women's Health Accelerometry Collaboration.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Identifying Multicomponent Patterns and Correlates of Accelerometry-Assessed Physical Behaviors Among Postmenopausal Women: The Women's Health Accelerometry Collaboration.Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour · 2024Article
- Maximizing the Utility and Comparability of Accelerometer Data from Large-Scale Epidemiologic Studies.Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour · 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Traditional summary metrics provided by accelerometer device manufacturers, known as counts, are proprietary and manufacturer specific, making them difficult to compare studies using different devices. Alternative summary metrics based on raw accelerometry data have been introduced in recent years. However, they were often not calibrated on ground truth measures of activity-related energy expenditure for direct translation into continuous activity intensity levels. Our purpose is to calibrate, derive, and validate thresholds among women 60 years and older based on a recently proposed transparent raw data based accelerometer activity index (AAI), and to demonstrate its application in association with cardiometabolic risk factors. Methods: We first built calibration equations for estimating metabolic equivalents (METs) continuously using AAI and personal characteristics using internal calibration data (n=199). We then derived AAI cutpoints to classify epochs into sedentary behavior and intensity categories. The AAI cutpoints were applied to 4,655 data units in the main study. We then utilized linear models to investigate associations of AAI sedentary behavior and physical activity intensity with cardiometabolic risk factors. Results: We found that AAI demonstrated great predictive accuracy for METs (R Conclusion: The calibration framework for AAI and the cutpoints derived for women older than 60 years can be applied to ongoing epidemiologic studies to more accurately define sedentary behavior and physical activity intensity exposures which could improve accuracy of estimated associations with health outcomes.
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.