ArticlePloS one2025
Influence of pre-processing criteria on analysis of accelerometry-based physical activity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- The Park RX RCT: Impact on Physical Activity Among Youth.American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Trial
- Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial on reducing sedentary behaviour and its effects on quality of life and wellbeing.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Reporting of Accelerometry in Health Research: A Scoping Review of Current Guidance.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccelerometers are widely adopted for physical activity (PA) measurement. Accelerometry data require pre-processing before entering formal statistical analyses. Many pre-processing criteria may influence PA outcomes and the processed sample, impacting results in subsequent statistical analyses.
aimTo study the implications of pre-processing criteria for accelerometer data on outputs of interest in physical activity studies.
methodsWe used the ActiGraph hip-worn accelerometry data from 538 adult Latino participants. We studied four most important domains of pre-processing criteria (wear-time, minimum wear-time, intensity level, and modified bouts). We examined the true sample size in pre-processed data, the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) outcome, and regression coefficients of age and gender predicting MVPA.
resultsMany pre-processing criteria have minimum impact to the output of interest. However, requirements for minimum wear-time can have high influence on subsequent analyses for MVPA. High requirements for wear-time (e.g., minimum of 5 days with more than 12 hours of wear-time per day) lead to weakened statistical efficiency in estimating the relationship between potential predictors and the MVPA outcome. Intensity levels using vector magnitude triaxial counts yielded drastically different results than those using conventional vertical axis counts.
conclusionModerate changes in minimum wear-time can yield notably different output data and subsequently influence analyses assessing the impacts of interventions on MVPA behaviors. Processed data using vector magnitude and conventional vertical axis counts are not directly comparable. Sensitivity analyses using alternative pre-processing scenarios are highly recommended to verify the robustness of analyses for accelerometry data.
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.