超越(日志)书:比较加速度计无磨损检测技术在幼儿

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Elyse Letts, Sarah M. da Silva, Natascja Di Cristofaro, Sara King-Dowling, Joyce Obeid
{"title":"超越(日志)书:比较加速度计无磨损检测技术在幼儿","authors":"Elyse Letts,&nbsp;Sarah M. da Silva,&nbsp;Natascja Di Cristofaro,&nbsp;Sara King-Dowling,&nbsp;Joyce Obeid","doi":"10.1111/cch.70133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Accelerometers are increasingly used to measure physical activity and sedentary time in toddlers. Data cleaning or wear time validation can impact outcomes of interest, particularly in young children who spend less time awake. However, no study has systematically compared wear time validation strategies in toddlers. As such, the objective of this study is to compare different fully automated methods of distinguishing wear and nonwear time (counts and raw data algorithms) methods to the semi automated (counts with logbooks) criterion method in toddlers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We recruited 109 toddlers (age 12–35 months) as part of the iPLAY study to wear an ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT accelerometer on the right hip for ~7 consecutive days (removed for sleep and water activities). Parents completed a logbook to indicate monitor removal and nap times. We tested 15 nonwear detection methods grouped into four main categories: semi-automated logbook, consecutive 0 counts, modified consecutive 0 counts (Troiano and Choi) and raw data methods (van Hees and Ahmadi). Using semi-automated logbooks as the criterion standard (all wear and wake-time only wear), we calculated the accuracy and F1 scores (a metric which balances precision and recall) and compared overall wear time with a two one-sided test of equivalence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Participant daily wear time ranged from 556 to 684 min/day depending on method. Accuracy and F1 score ranged from 86% to 95%. Five methods were considered equivalent to the AllWear nonwear criterion (true wear time including sleep-time wear), with only one equivalent to the AwakeWear criterion. Mean absolute differences were lower for the AllWear criterion but ranged from 49 to 192 min/day.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The 5min0count, 10min_0count, 30min_0count, Troiano60s and Ahmadi methods provide high accuracy and equivalency when compared with semi-automated cleaning using logbooks. This paper provides insights and quantitative results that can help researchers decide which method may be the most appropriate given their population of interest, sample size and study protocol.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55262,"journal":{"name":"Child Care Health and Development","volume":"51 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cch.70133","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the (Log)book: Comparing Accelerometer Nonwear Detection Techniques in Toddlers\",\"authors\":\"Elyse Letts,&nbsp;Sarah M. da Silva,&nbsp;Natascja Di Cristofaro,&nbsp;Sara King-Dowling,&nbsp;Joyce Obeid\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cch.70133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Accelerometers are increasingly used to measure physical activity and sedentary time in toddlers. Data cleaning or wear time validation can impact outcomes of interest, particularly in young children who spend less time awake. However, no study has systematically compared wear time validation strategies in toddlers. As such, the objective of this study is to compare different fully automated methods of distinguishing wear and nonwear time (counts and raw data algorithms) methods to the semi automated (counts with logbooks) criterion method in toddlers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We recruited 109 toddlers (age 12–35 months) as part of the iPLAY study to wear an ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT accelerometer on the right hip for ~7 consecutive days (removed for sleep and water activities). Parents completed a logbook to indicate monitor removal and nap times. We tested 15 nonwear detection methods grouped into four main categories: semi-automated logbook, consecutive 0 counts, modified consecutive 0 counts (Troiano and Choi) and raw data methods (van Hees and Ahmadi). Using semi-automated logbooks as the criterion standard (all wear and wake-time only wear), we calculated the accuracy and F1 scores (a metric which balances precision and recall) and compared overall wear time with a two one-sided test of equivalence.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Participant daily wear time ranged from 556 to 684 min/day depending on method. Accuracy and F1 score ranged from 86% to 95%. Five methods were considered equivalent to the AllWear nonwear criterion (true wear time including sleep-time wear), with only one equivalent to the AwakeWear criterion. Mean absolute differences were lower for the AllWear criterion but ranged from 49 to 192 min/day.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The 5min0count, 10min_0count, 30min_0count, Troiano60s and Ahmadi methods provide high accuracy and equivalency when compared with semi-automated cleaning using logbooks. This paper provides insights and quantitative results that can help researchers decide which method may be the most appropriate given their population of interest, sample size and study protocol.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child Care Health and Development\",\"volume\":\"51 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cch.70133\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child Care Health and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cch.70133\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Care Health and Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cch.70133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加速度计越来越多地用于测量幼儿的身体活动和久坐时间。数据清理或穿戴时间验证可能会影响感兴趣的结果,特别是对于那些醒着的时间较少的幼儿。然而,没有研究系统地比较了幼儿的穿着时间验证策略。因此,本研究的目的是比较不同的全自动方法区分磨损和非磨损时间(计数和原始数据算法)方法和半自动(计数与日志)标准方法在幼儿中。方法:我们招募了109名幼儿(12-35个月)作为iPLAY研究的一部分,连续7天在右臀部佩戴ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT加速度计(在睡觉和水上活动时取下)。家长们完成了一份日志,以表明监视器的移除和午睡时间。我们测试了15种非磨损检测方法,分为四大类:半自动日志、连续0计数、修改连续0计数(Troiano和Choi)和原始数据方法(van Hees和Ahmadi)。使用半自动日志作为标准(所有磨损和仅唤醒时间磨损),我们计算了准确性和F1分数(平衡精度和召回率的指标),并将总体磨损时间与两个单侧等效检验进行了比较。结果受试者每日穿着时间为556 ~ 684分钟/天。准确率和F1评分从86%到95%不等。五种方法被认为相当于AllWear非磨损标准(真实磨损时间包括睡眠时间磨损),只有一种方法相当于AwakeWear标准。AllWear标准的平均绝对差异较低,但范围为49至192分钟/天。结论5min0count、10min_0count、30min_0count、Troiano60s和Ahmadi方法与日志半自动清洗方法相比,具有较高的准确性和等效性。本文提供了见解和定量结果,可以帮助研究人员决定哪种方法可能是最合适的,因为他们感兴趣的人群,样本量和研究方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Beyond the (Log)book: Comparing Accelerometer Nonwear Detection Techniques in Toddlers

Beyond the (Log)book: Comparing Accelerometer Nonwear Detection Techniques in Toddlers

Background

Accelerometers are increasingly used to measure physical activity and sedentary time in toddlers. Data cleaning or wear time validation can impact outcomes of interest, particularly in young children who spend less time awake. However, no study has systematically compared wear time validation strategies in toddlers. As such, the objective of this study is to compare different fully automated methods of distinguishing wear and nonwear time (counts and raw data algorithms) methods to the semi automated (counts with logbooks) criterion method in toddlers.

Methods

We recruited 109 toddlers (age 12–35 months) as part of the iPLAY study to wear an ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT accelerometer on the right hip for ~7 consecutive days (removed for sleep and water activities). Parents completed a logbook to indicate monitor removal and nap times. We tested 15 nonwear detection methods grouped into four main categories: semi-automated logbook, consecutive 0 counts, modified consecutive 0 counts (Troiano and Choi) and raw data methods (van Hees and Ahmadi). Using semi-automated logbooks as the criterion standard (all wear and wake-time only wear), we calculated the accuracy and F1 scores (a metric which balances precision and recall) and compared overall wear time with a two one-sided test of equivalence.

Results

Participant daily wear time ranged from 556 to 684 min/day depending on method. Accuracy and F1 score ranged from 86% to 95%. Five methods were considered equivalent to the AllWear nonwear criterion (true wear time including sleep-time wear), with only one equivalent to the AwakeWear criterion. Mean absolute differences were lower for the AllWear criterion but ranged from 49 to 192 min/day.

Conclusions

The 5min0count, 10min_0count, 30min_0count, Troiano60s and Ahmadi methods provide high accuracy and equivalency when compared with semi-automated cleaning using logbooks. This paper provides insights and quantitative results that can help researchers decide which method may be the most appropriate given their population of interest, sample size and study protocol.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
136
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Child: care, health and development is an international, peer-reviewed journal which publishes papers dealing with all aspects of the health and development of children and young people. We aim to attract quantitative and qualitative research papers relevant to people from all disciplines working in child health. We welcome studies which examine the effects of social and environmental factors on health and development as well as those dealing with clinical issues, the organization of services and health policy. We particularly encourage the submission of studies related to those who are disadvantaged by physical, developmental, emotional and social problems. The journal also aims to collate important research findings and to provide a forum for discussion of global child health issues.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信