.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Prior automatic posture and activity identification improves physical activity energy expenditure prediction from hip-worn triaxial accelerometry
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
M
T
H
J
A
M
P
G
S
S
S
C
DOI：10.1152/japplphysiol.00556.2017.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Accelerometry is increasingly used to quantify physical activity (PA) and related energy expenditure (EE). Linear regression models designed to derive PAEE from accelerometry-counts have shown their limits, mostly due to the lack of consideration of the nature of activities performed. Here we tested whether a model coupling an automatic activity/posture recognition (AAR) algorithm with an activity-specific count-based model, developed in 61 subjects in laboratory conditions, improved PAEE and total EE (TEE) predictions from a hip-worn triaxial-accelerometer (ActigraphGT3X+) in free-living conditions. Data from two independent subject groups of varying body mass index and age were considered: 20 subjects engaged in a 3-h urban-circuit, with activity-by-activity reference PAEE from combined heart-rate and accelerometry monitoring (Actiheart); and 56 subjects involved in a 14-day trial, with PAEE and TEE measured using the doubly-labeled water method. PAEE was estimated from accelerometry using the activity-specific model coupled to the AAR algorithm (AAR model), a simple linear model (SLM), and equations provided by the companion-software of used activity-devices (Freedson and Actiheart models). AAR-model predictions were in closer agreement with selected references than those from other count-based models, both for PAEE during the urban-circuit (RMSE = 6.19 vs 7.90 for SLM and 9.62 kJ/min for Freedson) and for EE over the 14-day trial, reaching Actiheart performances in the latter (PAEE: RMSE = 0.93 vs. 1.53 for SLM, 1.43 for Freedson, 0.91 MJ/day for Actiheart; TEE: RMSE = 1.05 vs. 1.57 for SLM, 1.70 for Freedson, 0.95 MJ/day for Actiheart). Overall, the AAR model resulted in a 43% increase of daily PAEE variance explained by accelerometry predictions. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Although triaxial accelerometry is widely used in free-living conditions to assess the impact of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) on health, its precision and accuracy are often debated. Here we developed and validated an activity-specific model which, coupled with an automatic activity-recognition algorithm, improved the variance explained by the predictions from accelerometry counts by 43% of daily PAEE compared with models relying on a simple relationship between accelerometry counts and EE.
Keywords:
accelerometry
activity recognition
doubly
labeled water method
energy expenditure
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
3.3
Papers:
1.5W
Citations:
4.0W
Organization
Cited Papers