ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2025
Comparing Step-Counting Algorithms for High-Resolution Wrist Accelerometry Data in Older Adults in the ARIC Study.
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStep counting from wrist accelerometry data is widely used in physical activity research and practice. While several open-source algorithms can estimate steps from high-resolution accelerometry data, there is a critical need to compare these algorithms and provide practical recommendations for their use in older adults.
methodsA total of 1 282 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study participants (mean age 83.4, 60% female) wore ActiGraph GT9X wrist devices for 7 days, collecting 80-Hz triaxial accelerometry data. Five open-source step-counting algorithms (ADEPT, Oak, Step Detection Threshold [SDT], Verisense, and Stepcount) were applied to this data. Step count distributions and their cross-sectional associations with health outcomes were compared.
resultsThe estimated mean daily step counts varied widely across algorithms, ranging from 988 for ADEPT to 23 607 for SDT. Pearson correlations across methods ranged from moderate (r = 0.52) to very strong (r = 0.96). All step counts were highly associated with age, with an estimated decline of 119.0 to 142.8 steps/year (all p < .001) with comparable trends observed across demographic subgroups. After z-score standardization (subtracting the population mean and dividing by the population standard deviation), the estimated steps from each algorithm exhibited similar directionality and magnitude of association with various metabolic, cardiovascular, physical performance, and cognitive outcomes (all p < .001).
conclusionsThe estimated step counts algorithms are highly correlated, and, after z-scoring, have similar and highly significant associations with health outcomes. Because the total number of steps varies widely across algorithms, interpretation and translation of results for health monitoring and clinical use in older adults depend on the choice of step-counting algorithm.
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.