ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Algorithm Validation for Quantifying ActiGraph™ Physical Activity Metrics in Individuals with Chronic Low Back Pain and Healthy Controls.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-Field Ecological Momentary Assessment From Wearable Motion Sensors and Self-Report in a Chronic Low Back Pain Cohort.JOR spine · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing physical activity is important in the treatment of chronic conditions, including chronic low back pain (cLBP). ActiGraph™, a widely used physical activity monitor, collects raw acceleration data, and processes these data through proprietary algorithms to produce physical activity measures. The purpose of this study was to replicate ActiGraph™ algorithms in MATLAB and test the validity of this method with both healthy controls and participants with cLBP. MATLAB code was developed to replicate ActiGraph™'s activity counts and step counts algorithms, to sum the activity counts into counts per minute (CPM), and categorize each minute into activity intensity cut points. A free-living validation was performed where 24 individuals, 12 cLBP and 12 healthy, wore an ActiGraph™ GT9X on their non-dominant hip for up to seven days. The raw acceleration data were processed in both ActiLife™ (v6), ActiGraph™'s data analysis software platform, and through MATLAB (2022a). Percent errors between methods for all 24 participants, as well as separated by cLBP and healthy, were all less than 2%. ActiGraph™ algorithms were replicated and validated for both populations, based on minimal error differences between ActiLife™ and MATLAB, allowing researchers to analyze data from any accelerometer in a manner comparable to ActiLife™.
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.