146: Validation of Parent-Reported Physical and Sedentary Activity by Accelerometry in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity in early childhood may be important for the prevention of childhood obesity, although it is unknown if parent-reported physical activity and sedentary behavior are valid in preschoolers. The objectives of this study were to validate parent-reported physical activity and sedentary behavior using accelerometry in young children. From 2013 to 2014, 117 healthy children (ages 0–5) were recruited to wear Actical accelerometers for seven days. Average daily physical activity was defined as the sum of activity ≥100 counts per minute, and sedentary behavior as the sum of activity <100 counts/min, during waking hours. Parents reported daily physical activity (including unstructured free play in and out of school, and structured activities) and sedentary behaviours (including screen time, stroller time, time in motor vehicle). Spearman correlation tests with 95% confidence intervals, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the validity of parent-reported measures compared to directly measured accelerometer data. The correlation between parent-reported and directly measured total physical activity was ρ=0.39 (95% CI 0.19, 0.56). The correlations between types of physical activity (unstructured activity in and outside of school/daycare, and structured activity) and accelerometer were ρ=0.30 (0.09, 0.49); ρ=0.42 (0.23, 0.58); ρ=0.26 (0.05, 0.46), respectively. Parent-reported and objectively measured total sedentary behaviour were not correlated, ρ=0.10 (−0.12, 0.33). Parent-reported measures of unstructured free play and structured activity may be valid for the relative measurement of physical activity among children less than 6 years of age. Further research is needed to adequately capture sedentary behavior in young children.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".