Comparison of Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph Accelerometers in 10-yr-old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: A new accelerometer, the Kenz Lifecorder EX (LC; Suzuken Co. Ltd, Nagoya, Japan), offers promise as a feasible monitor alternative to the commonly used Actigraph (AG: Actigraph LLC, Fort Walton Beach, FL). PURPOSE: This study compared the LC and AG accelerometers and the Yamax SW-200 pedometer (DW) under free-living conditions with regard to children's steps taken and time in light-intensity physical activity (PA) and moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA). METHODS: Participants (N=31, age=10.2 +/- 0.4 yr) wore LC, AG, and DW monitors from arrival at school (7:45 a.m.) until they went to bed. Time in light and MVPA intensities were calculated using two separate intensity classifications for the LC (LC_4 and LC_5) and four classifications for the AG (AG_Treuth, AG_Puyau, AG_Trost, and AG_Freedson). Both accelerometers provided steps as outputs. DW steps were self-recorded. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to assess overlapping monitor outputs. RESULTS: There was no difference between DW and LC steps (Delta=200 steps), but a nonsignificant trend was observed in the pairwise comparison between DW and AG steps (Delta=1001 steps, P=0.058). AG detected significantly greater steps than the LC (Delta=801 steps, P=0.001). Estimates of light-intensity activity minutes ranged from a low of 75.6 +/- 18.4 min (LC_4) to a high of 309 +/- 69.2 min (AG_Treuth). Estimates of MVPA minutes ranged from a low of 25.9 +/- 9.4 min (LC_5) to a high of 112.2 +/- 34.5 min (AG_Freedson). No significant differences in MVPA were seen between LC_5 and AG_Treuth (Delta=4.9 min) or AG_Puyau (Delta=1.7 min). CONCLUSION: The LC detected a comparable number of steps as the DW but significantly fewer steps than the AG in children. Current results indicate that the LC_5 and either AG_Treuth or AG_Puyau intensity derivations provide similar mean estimates of time in MVPA during-free living activity in 10-yr-old children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".