ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2026
The Concurrent Validity of the ActiGraph LEAP Compared to the ActiGraph GT9X Link for Measuring Physical Activity.
Article in Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour, 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
Abstract
Background: The ActiGraph GT9X Link wearable accelerometer has been widely utilized for physical activity (PA) measurement but is no longer in production. The performance of the ActiGraph LEAP, regarded as its successor and released in 2023, remains unevaluated in comparison to other accelerometers. This study aimed to establish concurrent validity of the ActiGraph LEAP device through PA measurements and comparison with the GT9X Link. Methods: A total of 26 young adults (mean age = 21 ± 4 years) wore the ActiGraph LEAP and GT9X Link simultaneously for 7 consecutive days on their nondominant wrist. Monitor Independent Movement Summary units were utilized for calculation of daily sedentary time, light PA, and moderate to vigorous PA across valid days of wear (≥10 hr). Nonwear time was determined using a preexisting algorithm. Intraclass correlation coefficient, mean absolute percent error, equivalence tests (with GT9X Link as reference), and Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement between daily values of sedentary time, light PA, and moderate to vigorous PA recorded by each device across all valid days recorded among participants. Results: A total of 149 days of data were compared between the two devices. Across all PA levels, acceptable-excellent agreement was found (mean absolute percent error = 3.86%-13.86% and intraclass correlation coefficient = .94-.99), and Bland-Altman plots showed that at least 90% of recorded data fell within the 95% limits of agreement. Conclusions: The findings suggest that sedentary time and PA measurements using Monitor Independent Movement Summary units from the ActiGraph LEAP compare well with the GT9X Link, indicating that the LEAP performs similarly to the GT9X Link.
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.