Validity of activity monitors worn at multiple nontraditional locations under controlled and free-living conditions in young adult women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of counting steps and computing indices of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) using miniature activity monitors with 3-D technology worn at various locations under controlled (CON) and free-living conditions (FL). Kenz e-style2, Tanita Calorism Smart, and Omron Calori Scan HJA-306 activity monitors were assessed. Nine and 31 young adult women were assigned to the CON and FL studies, respectively. While walking or jogging on a treadmill at 5 different speeds, the subjects simultaneously carried the 3 different monitors in a pants pocket (PP), a chest shirt pocket, and a shoulder bag (B). Under the FL condition, the 3 monitors were placed only at the PP and B locations for practical reasons. Significant effects of monitor location and walking/jogging speed on the step count measured by the 3 monitors were evaluated under the CON condition. Monitors placed at both PP and B tended to underestimate the number of steps; however, there were no significant differences between the values obtained with the Kenz monitor and those obtained with a criterion accelerometer under the FL condition. Moreover, strong correlations were observed between steps measured by monitors placed at PP and steps measured by the criterion accelerometer. The amount of MVPA for the PP location and the non-carrying duration of the bag for the B location were considered to be important determinants of the accuracy of step counting under the FL condition. In conclusion, monitors placed at the PP location, especially the Kenz monitor, showed acceptable accuracy for young adult women in real-life settings. In contrast, MVPA indices assessed using these monitors showed limited validity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".