VALIDATION OF STANDARDIZATION METHODOLOGY TO MINIMIZE MEASUREMENT BIAS DUE TO SYSTEMATIC ACCELEROMETER WEAR-TIME VARIATION IN PRESCHOOLERS, ADOLESCENTS, AND ADULTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Increasingly, physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SED) are independently being associated with physical, mental and emotional well-being. The heightened research interest in this area has resulted in an upsurge of accelerometer usage to objectively quantify PA and SED. However, these epidemiological investigations consistently ignore systematic variation in the number of hours participants wear accelerometers each day (i.e., systematic accelerometer wear-time variation), and this has a direct impact on measured activity. Objectives Using three different cohorts (3–5 years ─ N=83; 10-14years ─ N=455; and 18 years and older ─ N=21), this study aims to validate a standardization methodology to minimize measurement bias due to accelerometer wear-time variation. Methods In epidemiological studies, accelerometry is generally conducted over seven consecutive days, and participants' data are considered 'valid' only if wear-time is at least 10 hours/day. However, there could be systematic wear-time variation even within 'valid' data. To explore this variation, accelerometer data from two studies set in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan were analyzed: Smart Cities, Healthy Kids (smartcitieshealthykids.com) and Healthy Start (http://www.canadainmotion.ca/healthy_start/). Subsequently, a standardization method was developed where case-specific observed wear-time was controlled for using an ‘analyst specified’ time period. Next, case-specific accelerometer data were interpolated to this controlled wear-time to produce standardized variables. To understand discrepancies owing to wear-time variation, identical analyses were conducted with data from all three cohorts both pre- and post-standardization. The results of these identical analyses were compared to objectively validate the standardization methodology. Results In all three cohorts, descriptive analyses revealed systematic wear-time variation between participants. Again, in all three cohorts, pre- and post-standardized analyses of the three outcome variables (SED, light physical activity and moderate vigorous physical activity) that cover the whole range of human activities revealed an identical and often significant trend of wear-time's influence on activity. For instance, SED which was consistently higher during weekdays pre-standardization, proved to be higher during weekends post-standardization. Conclusions Analyzing accelerometer data without standardizing wear-time will cause biased results and erroneous conclusions. Standardizing accelerometer data using the above mentioned methodology produces stable variables and a uniform platform to compare results between studies, irrespective of the studies' sample size or age characteristics.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,273 | 0,385 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».