ArticleBMC biomedical engineering2023
Fourteen days free-living evaluation of an open-source algorithm for counting steps in healthy adults with a large variation in physical activity level.
Article in BMC biomedical engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- Simple step counting captures comparable health information to complex accelerometer measurements.Journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Digital measurement of mobility in pulmonary arterial hypertension: A structured review of an emerging area.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of steps by an individual, has traditionally been assessed with a pedometer, but increasingly with an accelerometer. The ActiLife software (AL) is the most common way to process accelerometer data to steps, but it is not open source which could aid understanding of measurement errors. The aim of this study was to compare assessment of steps from the open-source algorithm part of the GGIR package and two closed algorithms, AL normal (n) and low frequency extension (lfe) algorithms to Yamax pedometer, as reference. Free-living in healthy adults with a wide range of activity level was studied.
resultsA total 46 participants divided by activity level into a low-medium active group and a high active group, wore both an accelerometer and a pedometer for 14 days. In total 614 complete days were analyzed. A significant correlation between Yamax and all three algorithms was shown but all comparisons were significantly different with paired t-tests except for ALn vs Yamax. The mean bias shows that ALn slightly overestimated steps in the low-medium active group and slightly underestimated steps in high active group. The mean percentage error (MAPE) was 17% and 9% respectively. The ALlfe overestimated steps by approximately 6700/day in both groups and the MAPE was 88% in the low-medium active group and 43% in the high active group. The open-source algorithm underestimated steps with a systematic error related to activity level. The MAPE was 28% in the low-medium active group and 48% in the high active group.
conclusionThe open-source algorithm captures steps fairly well in low-medium active individuals when comparing with Yamax pedometer, but did not show satisfactory results in more active individuals, indicating that it must be modified before implemented in population research. The AL algorithm without the low frequency extension measures similar number of steps as Yamax in free-living and is a useful alternative before a valid open-source algorithm is available.
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.