The use of uniaxial accelerometry for the assessment of physical-activity-related energy expenditure: a validation study against whole-body indirect calorimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the total energy expenditure (TEE) and the levels of physical activity in free-living conditions with non-invasive techniques remains a challenge. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of a new uniaxial accelerometer for assessing TEE and physical-activity-related energy expenditure (PAEE) over a 24 h period in a respiratory chamber, and to establish activity levels based on the accelerometry ranges corresponding to the operationally defined metabolic equivalent (MET) categories. In study 1, measurement of the 24 h energy expenditure of seventy-nine Japanese subjects (40 (SD 12) years old) was performed in a large respiratory chamber. During the measurements, the subjects wore a uniaxial accelerometer (Lifecorder; Suzuken Co. Ltd, Nagoya, Japan) on their belt. Two moderate walking exercises of 30 min each were performed on a horizontal treadmill. In study 2, ten male subjects walked at six different speeds and ran at three different speeds on a treadmill for 4 min, with the same accelerometer. O2 consumption was measured during the last minute of each stage and was expressed in MET. The measured TEE was 8447 (SD 1337) kJ/d. The accelerometer significantly underestimated TEE and PAEE (91.9 (SD 5.4) and 92.7 (SD 17.8) % chamber value respectively); however, there was a significant correlation between the two values (r 0.928 and 0.564 respectively; P<0.001). There was a strong correlation between the activity levels and the measured MET while walking (r(2) 0.93; P<0.001). Although TEE and PAEE were systematically underestimated during the 24 h period, the accelerometer assessed energy expenditure well during both the exercise period and the non-structured activities. Individual calibration factors may help to improve the accuracy of TEE estimation, but the average calibration factor for the group is probably sufficient for epidemiological research. This method is also important for assessing the diurnal profile of physical activity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".