We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Validation Studies
Evaluation of the activPAL accelerometer for physical activity and energy expenditure estimation in a semi-structured setting.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2017 November
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate accuracy of the activPAL and its proprietary software for prediction of time spent in physical activity (PA) intensities (sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous) and energy expenditure (EE) and compare its accuracy to that of a machine learning model (ANN) developed from raw activPAL data.
DESIGN: Semi-structured accelerometer validation in a laboratory setting.
METHODS: Participants (n=41 [20 male]; age=22.0±4.2) completed a 90-min protocol performing 13 activities for 3-10min each and choosing activity order, duration, and intensity. Participants wore an activPAL accelerometer (right thigh) and a portable metabolic analyzer. Criterion measures of time spent in sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous PA were determined using measured MET values of ≤1.5, 1.6-2.9, and ≥3.0, respectively. Estimated times in each PA intensity from the activPAL software and ANN were compared with the criterion using repeated measures ANOVA. Window-by-window EE prediction was assessed using correlations and root mean square error.
RESULTS: activPAL software-estimated sedentary time was not different from the criterion, but light PA was overestimated (6.2min) and moderate- to vigorous PA was underestimated (4.3min). ANN-estimated sedentary time and light PA were not different from the criterion, but moderate- to vigorous PA was overestimated (1.8min). For EE estimation, the activPAL software had lower correlations (r=0.76 vs. r=0.89) and higher error (1.74 vs. 1.07 METs) than the ANN.
CONCLUSIONS: The ANN had higher accuracy for estimation of EE and PA than the activPAL software in this semi-structured laboratory setting, indicating potential for the ANN to be used in PA assessment.
DESIGN: Semi-structured accelerometer validation in a laboratory setting.
METHODS: Participants (n=41 [20 male]; age=22.0±4.2) completed a 90-min protocol performing 13 activities for 3-10min each and choosing activity order, duration, and intensity. Participants wore an activPAL accelerometer (right thigh) and a portable metabolic analyzer. Criterion measures of time spent in sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous PA were determined using measured MET values of ≤1.5, 1.6-2.9, and ≥3.0, respectively. Estimated times in each PA intensity from the activPAL software and ANN were compared with the criterion using repeated measures ANOVA. Window-by-window EE prediction was assessed using correlations and root mean square error.
RESULTS: activPAL software-estimated sedentary time was not different from the criterion, but light PA was overestimated (6.2min) and moderate- to vigorous PA was underestimated (4.3min). ANN-estimated sedentary time and light PA were not different from the criterion, but moderate- to vigorous PA was overestimated (1.8min). For EE estimation, the activPAL software had lower correlations (r=0.76 vs. r=0.89) and higher error (1.74 vs. 1.07 METs) than the ANN.
CONCLUSIONS: The ANN had higher accuracy for estimation of EE and PA than the activPAL software in this semi-structured laboratory setting, indicating potential for the ANN to be used in PA assessment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app