MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977642648 · doi:10.1123/japa.2014-0033

Effect of ActiGraph GT3X+ Position and Algorithm Choice on Step Count Accuracy in Older Adults

2014· article· en· W1977642648 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Physical Activity · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationAccelerometerGaitAnkleAlgorithmMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStep detectionTwo stepPhysical therapyMathematicsComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accelerometer step count accuracy may be affected by gait speed, device positioning, and analysis algorithm selection. We assessed ActiGraph GT3X+ step count accuracy related to device placement and analysis algorithm in older adults with walking aids (n = 13) and without walking aids (n = 22). Participants (81.5 ± 5.0 years of age) completed a timed 100-m walk wearing five GT3X+ monitors (hips, ankles, lumbar spine). Individuals with walking aids had slower gait speeds (0.8 ± 0.20 m/s versus 1.2 ± 0.20 m/s without walking aids, p < .001). Intraclass correlation coefficient values for observed versus monitored steps were highest when ankle placement and the low frequency extension (LFE) algorithm were used (left ankle ICC = .989, right ankle ICC = .998). Using the GT3X+ ankle placement and analyzing data with the LFE algorithm resulted in the most accurate step counts in older adults.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it