Mining Sensor Data to Assess Changes in Physical Activity Behaviors in Health Interventions: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Sensors are increasingly used in health interventions to unobtrusively and continuously capture participants' physical activity in free-living conditions. The rich granularity of sensor data offers great potential for analyzing patterns and changes in physical activity behaviors. The use of specialized machine learning and data mining techniques to detect, extract, and analyze these patterns has increased, helping to better understand how participants' physical activity evolves. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify and present the various data mining techniques employed to analyze changes in physical activity behaviors from sensors-derived data in health education and health promotion intervention studies. We addressed two main research questions: (1) What are the current techniques used for mining physical activity sensor data to detect behavior changes in health education or health promotion contexts? (2) What are the challenges and opportunities in mining physical activity sensor data for detecting physical activity behavior changes? METHODS: The systematic review was performed in May 2021 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We queried the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Springer literature databases for peer-reviewed references related to wearable machine learning to detect physical activity changes in health education. A total of 4388 references were initially retrieved from the databases. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 285 references were subjected to full-text review, resulting in 19 articles included for analysis. RESULTS: All studies used accelerometers, sometimes in combination with another sensor (37%). Data were collected over a period ranging from 4 days to 1 year (median 10 weeks) from a cohort size ranging between 10 and 11615 (median 74). Data preprocessing was mainly carried out using proprietary software, generally resulting in step counts and time spent in physical activity aggregated predominantly at the daily or minute level. The main features used as input for the data mining models were descriptive statistics of the preprocessed data. The most common data mining methods were classifiers, clusters, and decision-making algorithms, and these focused on personalization (58%) and analysis of physical activity behaviors (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Mining sensor data offers great opportunities to analyze physical activity behavior changes, build models to better detect and interpret behavior changes, and allow for personalized feedback and support for participants, especially where larger sample sizes and longer recording times are available. Exploring different data aggregation levels can help detect subtle and sustained behavior changes. However, the literature suggests that there is still work remaining to improve the transparency, explicitness, and standardization of the data preprocessing and mining processes to establish best practices and make the detection methods easier to understand, scrutinize, and reproduce.
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 | 0,019 | 0,101 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».