Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41305204›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Aggregation Periods Influence Step Count Error in Low-Power Wearables.

Sydney Lundell, Kenton R Kaufman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sydney LundellMayo Clinic Motion Analysis Laboratory, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7339-5491
Kenton R KaufmanMayo Clinic Motion Analysis Laboratory, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7311-3781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearable sensors are increasingly used to monitor physical activity, yet low-power devices often rely on data aggregation to conserve battery life, potentially impacting measurement accuracy. This study evaluates the performance of a new low-power wearable (LPW), designed for monitoring steps across multiple months in a free-living environment, compared to a research-grade sensor (RGS) that collects raw acceleration data, with a focus on how different aggregation intervals impact step count accuracy. Thirty-two participants wore both sensors over two days, with LPW data collected in 10 min, 1 min, or 10 s aggregation periods (APs). Sensitivity and specificity of wear time detection were high across all APs (0.96 and 0.98, respectively). While total daily step count error did not differ significantly between APs, the 10 min AP exhibited greater undercounting and wider limits of agreement, especially in APs containing more than 40 steps. These findings suggest that although AP does not affect total daily step count, it influences the accuracy and variability of more granular data windows. Aggregating step counts over longer intervals may obscure short, fragmented bouts common in daily activity, leading to underestimation of steps. Optimizing APs and sensor settings is critical for improving accuracy in low-power wearables used outside laboratory settings.

Indexed as

AccelerometryMonitoring, AmbulatoryWalkingWearable Electronic DevicesAdultExerciseFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultaggregation periodsbin sizedata aggregationfree living validationlow power wearablesstep count accuracywalking boutswearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID41305204
PMCPMC12656366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.