Accuracy of the SenseWear Armband™ during Ergocycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to show the accuracy of a portable motion sensor, the SenseWear Armband, for the estimation of energy expenditure vs. energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry during ergocycling. 31 healthy adults (52% women; age: 26.7±6.3 years; Body Mass Index: 23.9±3.3 kg/m2) completed a 45-min ergocycling session at 50% of their VO2(peak). Despite a significant underestimation of 18.7±13.2 kcal during the first 10 min of the activity (T=5.06; p<0.001), we observed an overall good agreement between energy expenditure estimated by the SenseWear Armband during ergocycling and indirect calorimetry (260.3±80.1 vs. 287.8±97.1 kcal, respectively) (T=-2.148; p=0.04) and a significant intra-class correlation (r=0.81; p<0.001). The results of the present study indicate that the SenseWear Armband underestimated energy expenditure during a 45-min ergocycling session at a 50% VO2(peak) intensity, mainly during the first 10 min. Underestimation at the onset of the activity warrants further research.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".