MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341391590 · doi:10.1111/jgs.14051

Wrist Accelerometry in the Health, Functional, and Social Assessment of Older Adults

2016· letter· en· W2341391590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan Huisingh‐Scheetz, Masha Kocherginsky, Lara R. Dugas, Carolyn Payne, William Dale, David E. Conroy, Linda J. Waite

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineWristAccelerometerActigraphyGerontologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationActivities of daily livingCircadian rhythmInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: The importance of accelerometry as an indicator of older adult health is increasingly recognized. Low physical activity as assessed using hip accelerometry is associated with disability, cardiovascular risk, and poor health outcomes. Hip accelerometry is considered to be a more-precise measure of activity and sedentary behavior than wrist accelerometry,1 but wrist accelerometers have become ubiquitous commercially and are being used increasingly in research as a result of new activity monitor protocols (e.g., National Health and Nutrition Examination Study). Data relating wrist accelerometry to older adult health is lacking. The objective of the current analysis was to associate wrist accelerometry with an extensive set of health outcomes essential to older adult well-being in a nationally representative community sample. Data from a wrist accelerometry substudy (n = 738) in Wave 2 of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) were analyzed.2 An accelerometer (ActiWatch Spectrum, Philips Respironics, Aurora, IL) worn on the nondominant wrist continuously measured activity and sleep over 72 hours (not removed for water activities).3 Activity counts were recorded every 15 seconds (epoch). A galvanic sensor excluded nonwear time. Wake time was determined using software protocols and investigator adjustment to align event markers, ambient light, and activity data.4 Only days with 10 hours or more of wake time were included. Average daily activity was calculated as the sum of wake time counts divided by total number of epochs. Valid hours worn, number of weekend days worn (categorical, reference: no weekend days), and month of wear (categorical, reference: January) to approximate season were calculated. Self-rated physical and mental health (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor) were assessed. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, nonfasting glycosylated hemoglobin (%), C-reactive protein (CRP, mg/L), and body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) were measured.2 Obesity was identified as BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater. Participants reported any diagnoses of heart problems; diabetes mellitus; stroke; cancer (other than skin); or asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or emphysema5 and performed a 3-m timed walk twice and five timed serial chair stands.3 The fastest walk and chair stands times were recorded. Difficulty performing any activity of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) was self-reported.3 Frequency of 11 depressive symptoms and seven anxiety symptoms during the past week,6 frequency of attending meetings of organized groups and socializing with friends or family at least once per month, and current alcohol or tobacco use were self-reported. Age at the time of survey, sex, education, race, Hispanic ethnicity, household assets, and current working status were self-reported. Cognitive function was determined using the survey-adapted Montreal Cognitive Assessment.7 Association between average daily activity and each outcome was assessed using survey-adjusted regression models controlling for covariates, wear time, weekend days, and wear month. Effects per 10 activity counts are reported. Analyses were conducted using Stata version 14 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX). Of 738 participants, 631 had complete accelerometer and covariate data. Age ranged from 71.2 to 72.4, 52.8% were female, and 83.6% were white. Average daytime activity count was 54.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 52.1–56.4), mean number of valid wake hours was 36.4 (95% CI = 35.4–37.3), and 59.6% of participants did not wear the accelerometer on a weekend day (95% CI = 55.6–63.4%). Multivariate regression models demonstrated that all relationships between accelerometry and health outcome were in the expected direction (Tables 1 and 2). More physical activity was significantly associated with better reported physical (P < .001) and mental (P = .009) health, lower diastolic blood pressure (P = .01), lower BMI (P < .001), lower CRP (P = .02), less obesity (P < .001), lower HbA1c (P = .01), fewer reported heart problems (P = .01), less diabetes mellitus (P < .001), faster 3-m walk (P < 0.001), faster chair stands (P = .002), and less reported ADL (P = .002) and IADL (P = .006) difficulty. For example, a 10-point increase in mean activity count was associated with a 0.98-second (=e−0.02) faster walk and 20% lower risk of reporting an ADL disability. Similar to hip devices, wrist accelerometry-measured average daily activity was significantly associated with many physical and functional older adult health outcomes but with few mental health and social engagement outcomes. To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first report showing significant associations between wrist accelerometry and a wide range of health outcomes in a nationally representative sample of older adults.8 Accelerometry was assessed over 3 days, and the findings of strong associations with this brief wear duration suggest that accelerometry may be feasible in clinic settings. Longer durations (e.g., ≥5 days9) may more fully represent habitual activity, increase reliability, and therefore strengthen the accelerometry associations found with health outcomes. With newer wrist devices and algorithms for interpreting output, ease of wear, and low battery requirements, wrist accelerometers may become clinically useful moving forward. Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklist provided by the authors and has determined that the authors have no financial or any other kind of personal conflicts with this paper. This work was supported by National Institute on Aging Grants 1R01AG033903–01, R01 AG030481–01A1, and R37 AG030481. Author Contributions: Huisingh-Scheetz: concept, design, analysis, interpretation, drafting, revising, writing, approval of final draft. Kocherginsky: concept, design, analysis, revising, approval of final draft. Dugas: interpretation, revising, approval of final draft. Payne: acquisition of data, revising, approval of final draft. Dale, Conroy: concept, revising, approval of final draft. Waite: concept, design, interpretation of data, revising, approval of final draft. Sponsor's Role: None.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207