ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2026
Machine and Deep Learning for Detection of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity From Accelerometer Data: Systematic Scoping Review.
Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate monitoring of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is critical for advancing public health research and personalized interventions. Traditional accelerometry methods, reliant on regression-derived intensity cut points, exhibit significant misclassification errors and poor generalizability to the free-living environment. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) offer promising alternatives for automated MVPA detection.
objectiveThis scoping review synthesizes evidence on ML and DL techniques for MVPA estimation and prediction using accelerometer data, focusing on performance, algorithm bias, sensor configurations, and translational potential.
methodsFollowing PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science (February 1995-April 2025), supplemented by snowball citation tracking. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts against predefined inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were charted by one reviewer and verified by the other, extracting details on study characteristics, sensor configuration, ML and DL techniques, validation methods, and performance metrics. A narrative synthesis approach was used, guided by 6 research questions, to collate and summarize the findings. The synthesis process was rigorously reviewed by multiple authors to ensure consistency.
resultsOf 1938 screened studies, 40 met the inclusion criteria, with 4 studies added by follow-up manual searches. While traditional ML models (eg, random forest, support vector machine) achieved strong laboratory performance with F
conclusionsML and DL significantly enhance MVPA monitoring by automating feature extraction and improving adaptability to free-living variability. However, persistent gaps in generalizability, inconsistent validation protocols, and transparency deficits hinder translation. The findings support the need for future research to prioritize inclusive model training, standardized reporting frameworks, and open science practices to realize the equitable potential of artificial intelligence-driven physical activity assessment.
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.