ArticlePloS one2026
Validating hip- and wrist-ActiGraph accelerometer cut-points for physical activity intensities in people living with coronary heart disease.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People with coronary heart disease (CHD) are encouraged to meet the public health moderate-to-vigorous aerobic physical activity (MVPA) guidelines for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, no accelerometer aerobic intensity cut-points are currently available to classify MVPA in this population. This study aimed to establish absolute and relative aerobic physical activity intensity accelerometer cut-points in people with CHD and compare the new with existing cut-points in an international cohort. Eighty-six participants with CHD performed a resting-metabolic-rate (RMR) assessment, activities-of-daily-living (ADLs) and a peak treadmill test with mixed-chamber gas analysis while wearing two ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers (hip and wrist). The average RMR was 2.8 ml.kg-1.min-1, 20% less than the commonly used 1 Metabolic Equivalent of Task (3.5 ml.kg-1.min-1). The study sample was randomly split into a training and independent validation set (2:1) allowing for cross validation. In the training set, there were significant positive correlations between accelerometer counts.min-1 (y-axis, vector-magnitude (VM)) and intensity (relative and absolute) across both accelerometer hip- and wrist-placements for all activities (p < 0.001). Using Generalized Estimating Equation modelling, there was a strong linear relationship between accelerometer counts and absolute intensity for hip-placement (R2 = 0.62-0.71), and weaker relationships for hip relative intensity (R2 = 0.40-0.47) and wrist-placement (R2 = 0.09-0.25). In the validation set, Bland-Altman plots found that the mean differences between predicted and actual absolute and relative intensity measures were negligible for all accelerometer counts.min-1 (y-axis, VM) and placements (hip, wrist), although the dispersion of the differences (95% limits of agreement) were wide. Hip VM counts.min-1 cut-points were found to best identify absolute and relative MVPA. In the international comparison (n = 176), participants completed significantly more MVPA using the new cut-points (p < 0.001). Thus, accelerometer cut-points developed in healthy individuals appear to under-estimate physical activity intensity in this population and cut-points specific to people with CHD should be used. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12623000605695.
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.