MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120620067 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.557744

Moderate and vigorous physical activity intensity cut-points for the Actical accelerometer

2011· article· en· W2120620067 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel C. Colley, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerIntensity (physics)TreadmillPhysical activityCut-pointPhysical therapyExercise intensityExercise physiologyMedicineMathematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStatisticsComputer scienceHeart ratePhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accelerometry is increasingly used as a physical activity surveillance device that can quantify the amount of time spent moving at a range of intensities. This study proposes physical activity intensity cut-points for the Actical accelerometer. Thirty-eight volunteers completed a multi-stage treadmill protocol at 3, 5, and 8 km · h⁻¹ (2, 3.3, and 8 METs) while wearing Actical accelerometers initialized to collect data in 60-s epochs. Using a decision boundary analytical approach, moderate and vigorous physical activity intensity cut-points were derived for the Actical accelerometer. In adults (n = 26), the cut-point for moderate physical activity intensity occurred at 1535 counts per minute and the vigorous cut-point occurred at 3960 counts per minute. In children (n = 12), the cut-point for moderate physical activity intensity occurred at 1600 counts per minute and the vigorous cut-point occurred at 4760 counts per minute. Improved classification of physical activity intensity using the decision boundary cut-points was observed compared with using mean values for each protocol stage. The cut-points derived are recommended for use in adults. The cut-points derived for children confirm the findings of previous studies.

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 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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations206
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207