Validation of the PiezoRx® Step Count and Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Times in Free Living Conditions in Adults: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to: 1) Validate the PiezoRx® for steps and intensity related physical activity in free-living conditions compared to the criterion measure. 2) Compare PiezoRx®'s steps and intensity related physical activity to physiological assessments. 3) To assess the utility of the PiezoRx® in a subsample of participants. Thirty-nine participants consisting of 28 females aged 54.9±10.6 (33-74) years and 11 males aged 63.9±10.9 (44-80) years wore the PiezoRx® physical activity monitor and the ActiGraph® accelerometer for one full week and completed a physical assessment. A subsample (n=24) wore the PiezoRx® for an additional two weeks and completed a questionnaire regarding usability. The PiezoRx® had strong correlations to the ActiGraph® for step count (r=0.88; p<0.001), moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (r=0.70; p<0.001), and sedentary activity (r=0.93; p<0.001) in the 1-week monitoring period. The PiezoRx®'s steps/day and MVPA/week were negatively correlated (p<0.001) to body mass index and waist circumference, and positively correlated (p<0.05) to aerobic fitness, pushups, and 30 second sit-to-stand. Within the subsample who completed the additional two-week monitoring, 75% of participants reported that the PiezoRx® increased their physical activity. In conclusion, The PiezoRx® appears to be a valid measure of free-living PA compared to accelerometry. Because of the correlations of the PiezoRx®'s steps/day and MVPA/week to anthropometric, musculoskeletal and aerobic fitness these PA measures may be valuable objective surrogates to use in clinical or professional practice for physical health.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".