ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Monitoring of child-specific activities in ambulatory children with and without developmental disabilities.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Validation of an accelerometer system for activity monitoring in children with functional disabilities.European journal of pediatrics · 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
backgroundPediatric healthcare professionals facilitate children to enhance and maintain a physically active lifestyle. Activity monitors (AM) can help pediatric healthcare professionals assess physical activity in everyday life. However, validation research of activity monitors has often been conducted in laboratories and insight into physical activity of children in their own everyday environment is lacking. Our goal was to study the criterion validity of a prototype AM (AM-p) model in a natural setting.
methodsCross-sectional community-based study with ambulatory children (2-19 years) with and without developmental disability. Children wore the AM-p on the ankle and were filmed (gold standard) while performing an activity protocol in a natural setting. We labelled all videos per 5-second epoch with individual activity labels. Raw AM-p data were synchronized with activity labels. Using machine learning techniques, activity labels were subdivided in three pre-defined categories. Accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 score were calculated per category.
resultsWe analyzed data of 93 children, of which 28 had a developmental disability. Mean age was 11 years (SD 4.5) with 55% girls. The AM-p model differentiated between 'stationary', 'cycling' and 'locomotion' activities with an accuracy of 82%, recall of 78%, precision of 75%, and F1 score of 75%, respectively. Children older than 13 years with typical development can be assessed more accurately than younger children (2-12 years) with and without developmental disabilities.
conclusionThe single ankle-worn AM-p model can differentiate between three activity categories in children with and without developmental disabilities with good accuracy (82%). Because the AM-p can be used for a heterogenous group of ambulatory children with and without developmental disabilities, it may support the clinical assessment for pediatric healthcare professionals in the future.
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.