Comparative Analysis and Conversion Between Actiwatch and ActiGraph Open-Source Counts

Paul H. Lee, Ali Neishabouri, Andy C. Y. Tse, Christine C. Guo
{"title":"Comparative Analysis and Conversion Between Actiwatch and ActiGraph Open-Source Counts","authors":"Paul H. Lee, Ali Neishabouri, Andy C. Y. Tse, Christine C. Guo","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2022-0054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Body-worn sensors have contributed to a rich and growing body of literature in public health and clinical research in the last decades. A major challenge in sensor research is the lack of consistency and standardization of the collection and reporting of the sensor data. The algorithms used to derive these activity counts can be vastly different between manufactures and not always transparent to the researchers. With Philips, one of the major research-grade wearable device manufacturers, discontinuing this product line, many researchers are left in need of alternative solutions and at the risk of not being able to relate their historical data using the Philips Actiwatch 2 devices to future findings with other devices. We herein provide a comparison analysis and conversion method that can be used to convert activity counts from Philips to those from ActiGraph, another major manufacturer who provide both raw acceleration data and count data based on their open-source algorithm to the research community. This work provides an approach to maximize the scientific value of historical actigraphy data collected by the Actiwatch devices to support research continuity in this community. The conversion, however, is not perfect and only offers an approximation, due to the intrinsic difference in the count algorithms between the two accelerometers, and the permanent information loss during data reduction. We encourage future research using body-worn sensors to retain the raw sensor data to ensure data consistency, comparability, and the ability to leverage future algorithm improvement.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2022-0054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Body-worn sensors have contributed to a rich and growing body of literature in public health and clinical research in the last decades. A major challenge in sensor research is the lack of consistency and standardization of the collection and reporting of the sensor data. The algorithms used to derive these activity counts can be vastly different between manufactures and not always transparent to the researchers. With Philips, one of the major research-grade wearable device manufacturers, discontinuing this product line, many researchers are left in need of alternative solutions and at the risk of not being able to relate their historical data using the Philips Actiwatch 2 devices to future findings with other devices. We herein provide a comparison analysis and conversion method that can be used to convert activity counts from Philips to those from ActiGraph, another major manufacturer who provide both raw acceleration data and count data based on their open-source algorithm to the research community. This work provides an approach to maximize the scientific value of historical actigraphy data collected by the Actiwatch devices to support research continuity in this community. The conversion, however, is not perfect and only offers an approximation, due to the intrinsic difference in the count algorithms between the two accelerometers, and the permanent information loss during data reduction. We encourage future research using body-worn sensors to retain the raw sensor data to ensure data consistency, comparability, and the ability to leverage future algorithm improvement.
Actiwatch与ActiGraph开源计数的比较分析与转换
在过去的几十年里,穿戴式传感器在公共卫生和临床研究方面的文献丰富且不断增长。传感器研究的一个主要挑战是传感器数据的收集和报告缺乏一致性和标准化。用于计算这些活动计数的算法在不同的制造商之间可能差别很大,而且对研究人员来说并不总是透明的。飞利浦是主要的研究级可穿戴设备制造商之一,随着该产品线的停产,许多研究人员需要替代解决方案,并冒着无法将他们使用飞利浦Actiwatch 2设备的历史数据与其他设备的未来发现联系起来的风险。我们在此提供了一种比较分析和转换方法,可用于将飞利浦的活动计数转换为ActiGraph的活动计数,ActiGraph是另一家主要制造商,他们根据其开源算法向研究社区提供原始加速度数据和计数数据。这项工作提供了一种最大化Actiwatch设备收集的历史活动数据的科学价值的方法,以支持该社区的研究连续性。然而,由于两种加速度计之间计数算法的内在差异以及数据缩减过程中的永久信息丢失,转换并不完美,仅提供近似值。我们鼓励未来的研究使用穿戴式传感器来保留原始传感器数据,以确保数据的一致性、可比性和利用未来算法改进的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信