ArticleScientific reports2023
Generalizability and performance of methods to detect non-wear with free-living accelerometer recordings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of prolonged posture monitoring with accelerometer-based wearable sensors.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Correcting Measurement Error and Zero Inflation in Functional Covariates for Scalar-on-Function Quantile Regression.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Development of an alcohol biosensor non-wear algorithm: laboratory-based machine learning and field-based deployment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Automatic time in bed detection from hip-worn accelerometers for large epidemiological studies: The Tromsø Study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Collecting Self-reported Physical Activity and Posture Data Using Audio-based Ecological Momentary Assessment.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable physical activity sensors are widely used in research and practice as they provide objective measures of human behavior at a low cost. An important challenge for accurate assessment of physical activity behavior in free-living is the detection non-wear. Traditionally, heuristic algorithms that rely on specific interval lengths have been employed to detect non-wear time; however, machine learned models are emerging. We explore the potential of detecting non-wear using decision trees that combine raw acceleration and skin temperature, and we investigate the generalizability of our models, traditional heuristic algorithms, and recently developed machine learned models by external validation. The Decision tree models were trained using one week of data from thigh- and hip-worn accelerometers from 64 children. External validation was performed using data from wrist-worn accelerometers of 42 adolescents. For non-wear episodes longer than 60 min, the heuristic algorithms performed the best with F1-scores above 0.96. However, regarding episodes shorter than 60 min, the best performing method was the decision tree model including the six most important predictors with F1 scores above 0.74 for all sensor locations. We conclude that for classifying non-wear time, researchers should carefully select an appropriate method and we encourage the use of external validation when reporting on machine learned non-wear models.
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.