MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038200954 · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e181914ab5

How Many Days of Pedometer Monitoring Are Needed?

2009· letter· en· W2038200954 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yukitoshi Aoyagi, Roy J. Shephard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedometerIntraclass correlationReliability (semiconductor)StatisticsVariance (accounting)AmbulatoryComputer scienceData collectionPhysical activityMedicinePower (physics)MathematicsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor-in-Chief: Clemes and Griffiths (2) examined how many days of pedometer monitoring are needed to predict monthly ambulatory activity. They retrace much of the ground covered in a previous report of surprisingly similar title (5). However, certain limitations to their study lead to conclusions that diverge from the earlier findings. Their recording instrument (Digi-Walker SW-200) was less sophisticated than the one that we adopted (modified Kenz Lifecorder). It lacks an acceleration filter to screen out incidental movement artifacts, and because of limited data storage, variance is introduced by frequent removal of the device. Clemes and Griffiths (2) elected as their "gold standard" a 28-d period, despite substantial seasonal variations in physical activity (1,4,5,7). Reliability should be determined for a whole year and not just a single month. The recommendation of a 7-d collection period is particularly questionable because of short-term reactive responses; people who know that they have been fitted with a pedometer walk some 13,000 additional steps during the first week of observation (3). Like us, Clemes and Griffiths (2) have used an intraclass correlation analysis to establish the reliability of data. If a coefficient of 0.8 is accepted, the estimate provides only 64% of the intended information. We used a power spectrum analysis and fast Fourier transformation to evaluate the periodicity of counts over an entire year and defined the number of days of monitoring needed to estimate annual habitual physical activity at specified levels of confidence (5). The necessary period of continuous sampling for individual subjects proved surprisingly long, although obviously it would have been shorter with other approaches to sampling or if the need was simply for averaged information on a large population. In our men, 25 d of consecutive data collection was required to yield a coefficient of 0.8 relative to a yearlong gold standard (5). An individual's movement patterns show a varying vulnerability to exogenous factors such as an adverse climate (1,4,7). Probably because elderly Japanese women usually assume the main burden of low-intensity household tasks (6), the activity pattern of women in our sample was more regular than that of the men, and a coefficient of 0.8 was obtained with 8 d of observation (5). To reach a more satisfactory coefficient of 0.9, 105 and 37 d of consecutive observation were needed in men and women, respectively (5). Finally, Clemes and Griffiths (2) studied a population of working age. Occupations are not specified, but most subjects were presumably used. This would have imposed a structure on weekday activity that is lacking in other segments of the population, such as the elderly people that we studied. Yukitoshi Aoyagi, PhD Exercise Sciences Research Group Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Tokyo, Japan Roy J. Shephard, MD, PhD, DPE, LLD Faculty of Physical Education and Health University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207