MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessing Physical Activity In Girls Using Accelerometry - 60s Versus 10s Sampling Intervals

2009· article· en· W2081918830 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Yao, Panagiota Klentrou, Lauren Corbett, Izabella A. Ludwa, Bareket Falk

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityMedicineConfidence intervalActigraphySampling (signal processing)Physical therapyCircadian rhythmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children exhibit physical activity patterns mainly comprised of sporadic and intermittent bouts, each lasting under 15s in duration. Despite this fact, most studies utilize a 60s accelerometry sampling interval to objectively quantify physical activity in youths. This relatively long sampling interval may underestimate children's true physical activity behaviour. PURPOSE: To assess the difference in intensity, duration and number of continuous bouts of physical activity in children and adolescents when using accelerometry intervals of 60s vs. 10s. METHODS: A total of 106 girls and adolescents (mean = 13.0 ± 2.6 yrs old) wore ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers for all waking hours (except while bathing, swimming, etc.) over seven days. Accelerometers were set at 10s epochs and the raw data was subsequently re-integrated into 60s epochs. From data of both epoch lengths, daily bouts of moderate (MPA; 3-5.9 METs), vigorous (VPA; 6-8.9 METs) and very vigorous (VVPA; ≥9 METs) activities were quantified using a Visual Basic data reduction program. The number of continuous 5 min, 10 min and 20 min bouts at each intensity was also calculated. RESULTS: There was no difference in total MPA minutes between the 10s and 60s analysis. Total VPA, and VVPA were 80.4%, and 61.5% greater in the 10s sampling than in the 60s integrated sampling, respectively (p<0.01). When examining continuous bouts of activity, the 10s analysis generally resulted in more continuous bouts compared with the 60s analysis, especially when examining 5 min bouts of MPA (19.1%), 20 min bouts of VPA (14.6%), and of VVPA (0.9%)(p<0.01). CONCLUSION: The commonly used 60s accelerometry sampling interval underestimates the amount of physical activity that children and adolescents engage in, especially at the higher intensity levels. Thus, a sampling interval of 10s or less is warranted to better assess physical activity levels of different intensities in children and adolescents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→