Simulation-Based Evaluation of Methods for Handling Nonwear Time in Accelerometer Studies of Physical Activity.

Kristopher I Kapphahn, Jorge A Banda, K Farish Haydel, Thomas N Robinson, Manisha Desai
{"title":"Simulation-Based Evaluation of Methods for Handling Nonwear Time in Accelerometer Studies of Physical Activity.","authors":"Kristopher I Kapphahn, Jorge A Banda, K Farish Haydel, Thomas N Robinson, Manisha Desai","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2021-0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accelerometer data are widely used in research to provide objective measurements of physical activity. Frequently, participants may remove accelerometers during their observation period resulting in missing data referred to as nonwear periods. Common approaches for handling nonwear periods include discarding data (days with insufficient hours or individuals with insufficient valid days) from analyses and single imputation (SI) methods.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluates the performance of various discard-, SI-, and multiple imputation (MI)-based approaches on the ability to accurately and precisely characterize the relationship between a summarized measure of accelerometer counts (mean counts per minute) and an outcome (body mass index).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Realistic accelerometer data were simulated under various scenarios that induced nonwear. Data were analyzed using common and MI methods for handling nonwear. Bias, relative standard error, relative mean squared error, and coverage probabilities were compared across methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MI approaches were superior to commonly applied methods, with bias that ranged from -0.001 to -0.028 that was considerably lower than that of discard-based methods (ranging from -0.050 to -0.057) and SI methods (ranging from -0.061 to -0.081). We also reported substantial variation among MI strategies, with coverage probabilities ranging from .04 to .96.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings demonstrate the benefit of applying MI methods over more commonly applied discard- and SI-based approaches. Additionally, we show that how you apply MI matters, where including data from previously observed acceleration measurements in the imputation model when using MI improves model performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11501082/pdf/","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.2021-0030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accelerometer data are widely used in research to provide objective measurements of physical activity. Frequently, participants may remove accelerometers during their observation period resulting in missing data referred to as nonwear periods. Common approaches for handling nonwear periods include discarding data (days with insufficient hours or individuals with insufficient valid days) from analyses and single imputation (SI) methods.

Purpose: This study evaluates the performance of various discard-, SI-, and multiple imputation (MI)-based approaches on the ability to accurately and precisely characterize the relationship between a summarized measure of accelerometer counts (mean counts per minute) and an outcome (body mass index).

Methods: Realistic accelerometer data were simulated under various scenarios that induced nonwear. Data were analyzed using common and MI methods for handling nonwear. Bias, relative standard error, relative mean squared error, and coverage probabilities were compared across methods.

Results: MI approaches were superior to commonly applied methods, with bias that ranged from -0.001 to -0.028 that was considerably lower than that of discard-based methods (ranging from -0.050 to -0.057) and SI methods (ranging from -0.061 to -0.081). We also reported substantial variation among MI strategies, with coverage probabilities ranging from .04 to .96.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the benefit of applying MI methods over more commonly applied discard- and SI-based approaches. Additionally, we show that how you apply MI matters, where including data from previously observed acceleration measurements in the imputation model when using MI improves model performance.

基于模拟的方法评估体育活动加速度计研究中的非磨损时间处理方法。
加速度计数据在研究中被广泛用于提供客观的体力活动测量数据。通常情况下,参与者可能会在观察期间取下加速度计,从而导致数据缺失,这被称为非磨损期。处理非磨损期的常见方法包括从分析中丢弃数据(有效天数不足的天数或有效天数不足的个人)和单一归因(SI)方法。目的:本研究评估了各种基于丢弃、SI 和多重归因(MI)方法的性能,这些方法能够准确、精确地描述加速度计计数(平均每分钟计数)的汇总测量值与结果(体重指数)之间的关系:方法:在各种诱发非磨损的情况下模拟真实的加速度计数据。使用处理非磨损的常用方法和 MI 方法对数据进行分析。比较了不同方法的偏差、相对标准误差、相对均方误差和覆盖概率:MI方法优于常用方法,其偏差范围在-0.001到-0.028之间,大大低于基于丢弃的方法(范围在-0.050到-0.057之间)和SI方法(范围在-0.061到-0.081之间)。我们还报告了 MI 策略之间的巨大差异,覆盖概率从 0.04 到 0.96 不等:我们的研究结果表明,采用 MI 方法比更常用的基于丢弃和 SI 的方法更有优势。此外,我们还证明了如何应用 MI 非常重要,在使用 MI 时,将先前观察到的加速度测量数据纳入估算模型可提高模型性能。
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