Elaine Kh Tham, Bernard Tang, Natarajan Padmapriya, Anu Ss Rema, Jonathan Y Bernard, Peter D Gluckman, Yap-Seng Chong, Fabian Yap, Johan G Eriksson, Falk Müller-Riemenschneider, Shirong Cai
{"title":"Actigraphy Estimated Night Sleep Duration in Preschool Children: Comparison of an Automated Algorithm and Sleep Diary Against the Sadeh Algorithm.","authors":"Elaine Kh Tham, Bernard Tang, Natarajan Padmapriya, Anu Ss Rema, Jonathan Y Bernard, Peter D Gluckman, Yap-Seng Chong, Fabian Yap, Johan G Eriksson, Falk Müller-Riemenschneider, Shirong Cai","doi":"10.1080/15402002.2025.2481439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to compare amongst preschoolers, night sleep duration derived using the automated van Hees algorithm in GGIR (GGIR_VH) against the reference Sadeh algorithm (Actilife_SD), and subjective caregiver-reported sleep diaries against Actilife_SD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were 142 preschoolers (52.1% males), age 5.5 years, from the Growing Up in Singapore Toward healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) birth cohort study. Weeklong actigraphy data was collected via the wGT3X-BT accelerometer (worn on the non-dominant wrist) with concurrent caregiver-reported sleep diaries. Analyses were conducted to compare the automated GGIR_VH and sleep diaries against the reference Actilife_SD. Intraclass correlations were calculated to compare the agreement levels. Bland-Altman plots were used to investigate the bias in the mean differences and limits of agreement (LoA). Repeated measures of ANOVAs were used to compare mean differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the intraclass correlation between automated GGIR_VH and reference Actilife_SD, there was moderate agreement for the nighttime total sleep duration (<i>r</i> = 0.66) and poor agreement between diary and Actilife_SD (<i>r</i> = 0.04). Bland-Altman plots revealed a positive bias when comparing diaries against Actilife_SD, where diaries reported longer sleep duration. In contrast, there was almost no bias and smaller LoAs for the comparison between GGIR_VH and Actilife_SD. ANOVAs showed that comparisons between diary (<i>M</i> = 9.36, SD = 1.16) and Actilife_SD (<i>M</i> = 6.93, SD = 1.12); and GGIR_VH (<i>M</i> = 6.76, SD = 1.30) and Actilife_SD both yielded significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the automated GGIR_VH algorithm showed moderate agreement compared to the reference Actilife_SD. In contrast, sleep diaries overestimated sleep duration when compared to Actilife_SD.</p>","PeriodicalId":55393,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sleep Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sleep Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2025.2481439","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to compare amongst preschoolers, night sleep duration derived using the automated van Hees algorithm in GGIR (GGIR_VH) against the reference Sadeh algorithm (Actilife_SD), and subjective caregiver-reported sleep diaries against Actilife_SD.
Methods: Participants were 142 preschoolers (52.1% males), age 5.5 years, from the Growing Up in Singapore Toward healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) birth cohort study. Weeklong actigraphy data was collected via the wGT3X-BT accelerometer (worn on the non-dominant wrist) with concurrent caregiver-reported sleep diaries. Analyses were conducted to compare the automated GGIR_VH and sleep diaries against the reference Actilife_SD. Intraclass correlations were calculated to compare the agreement levels. Bland-Altman plots were used to investigate the bias in the mean differences and limits of agreement (LoA). Repeated measures of ANOVAs were used to compare mean differences.
Results: For the intraclass correlation between automated GGIR_VH and reference Actilife_SD, there was moderate agreement for the nighttime total sleep duration (r = 0.66) and poor agreement between diary and Actilife_SD (r = 0.04). Bland-Altman plots revealed a positive bias when comparing diaries against Actilife_SD, where diaries reported longer sleep duration. In contrast, there was almost no bias and smaller LoAs for the comparison between GGIR_VH and Actilife_SD. ANOVAs showed that comparisons between diary (M = 9.36, SD = 1.16) and Actilife_SD (M = 6.93, SD = 1.12); and GGIR_VH (M = 6.76, SD = 1.30) and Actilife_SD both yielded significant differences.
Conclusions: Overall, the automated GGIR_VH algorithm showed moderate agreement compared to the reference Actilife_SD. In contrast, sleep diaries overestimated sleep duration when compared to Actilife_SD.
期刊介绍：
Behavioral Sleep Medicine addresses behavioral dimensions of normal and abnormal sleep mechanisms and the prevention, assessment, and treatment of sleep disorders and associated behavioral and emotional problems. Standards for interventions acceptable to this journal are guided by established principles of behavior change. Intending to serve as the intellectual home for the application of behavioral/cognitive science to the study of normal and disordered sleep, the journal paints a broad stroke across the behavioral sleep medicine landscape. Its content includes scholarly investigation of such areas as normal sleep experience, insomnia, the relation of daytime functioning to sleep, parasomnias, circadian rhythm disorders, treatment adherence, pediatrics, and geriatrics. Multidisciplinary approaches are particularly welcome. The journal’ domain encompasses human basic, applied, and clinical outcome research. Behavioral Sleep Medicine also embraces methodological diversity, spanning innovative case studies, quasi-experimentation, randomized trials, epidemiology, and critical reviews.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
