Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37034681›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023

Validation of an open-source smartphone step counting algorithm in clinical and non-clinical settings.

Marcin Straczkiewicz, Nancy L Keating, Embree Thompson, Ursula A Matulonis, Susana M Campos, Alexi A Wright, Jukka-Pekka Onnela

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marcin StraczkiewiczDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Nancy L KeatingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Embree ThompsonDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Ursula A MatulonisDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Susana M CamposDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Alexi A WrightDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Jukka-Pekka OnnelaDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Funding

Integrating lifecourse approaches, biologic and digital phenotypes in support of heart and lung disease epidemiologic researchU01HL145386 · NHLBI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI CHAVARRO, JORGE EDUARDO, MANSON, JOANN ELISABETH · 2019 to 2025
$17.8M
Project 2: Combined personal neoantigen-targeting cancer vaccines with immune checkpoint blockade for ovarian cancerP50CA240243 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI CASTRO, CESAR M · 2020 to 2024
$11.5M
Neurodevelopmental Mechanisms Underlying Stress Vulnerability during AdolescenceR37MH119194 · NIMH · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI Katie McLaughlin · 2020 to 2026
$10.6M
Passive Data to Improve Outcomes in Advanced CancerR21NR018532 · NINR · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI ONNELA, JUKKA-PEKKA, WRIGHT, ALEXI A · 2019 to 2020
$459k
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA240243NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL145386NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH119194NINR NIH HHS R21 NR018532
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Step counts are increasingly used in public health and clinical research to assess wellbeing, lifestyle, and health status. However, estimating step counts using commercial activity trackers has several limitations, including a lack of reproducibility, generalizability, and scalability. Smartphones are a potentially promising alternative, but their step-counting algorithms require robust validation that accounts for temporal sensor body location, individual gait characteristics, and heterogeneous health states. Objective: Our goal was to evaluate an open-source step-counting method for smartphones under various measurement conditions against step counts estimated from data collected simultaneously from different body locations ("internal" validation), manually ascertained ground truth ("manual" validation), and step counts from a commercial activity tracker (Fitbit Charge 2) in patients with advanced cancer ("wearable" validation). Methods: We used eight independent datasets collected in controlled, semi-controlled, and free-living environments with different devices (primarily Android smartphones and wearable accelerometers) carried at typical body locations. Five datasets (N=103) were used for internal validation, two datasets (N=107) for manual validation, and one dataset (N=45) used for wearable validation. In each scenario, step counts were estimated using a previously published step-counting method for smartphones that uses raw sub-second level accelerometer data. We calculated mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between step count estimates and validation criteria using Bland-Altman analysis. Results: In the internal validation datasets, participants performed 751.7±581.2 (mean±SD) steps, and the mean bias was -7.2 steps (LoA -47.6, 33.3) or -0.5%. In the manual validation datasets, the ground truth step count was 367.4±359.4 steps while the mean bias was -0.4 steps (LoA -75.2, 74.3) or 0.1 %. In the wearable validation dataset, Fitbit devices indicated mean step counts of 1931.2±2338.4, while the calculated bias was equal to -67.1 steps (LoA -603.8, 469.7) or a difference of 0.3 %. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that our open-source step counting method for smartphone data provides reliable step counts across sensor locations, measurement scenarios, and populations, including healthy adults and patients with cancer.

Indexed as

accelerometercanceropen-sourcesmartphonestep countvalidationwearable

Identifiers

PMID37034681
PMCPMC10081434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.