How Well iPhones Measure Steps in Free-Living Conditions: Cross-Sectional Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphones have great potential for monitoring physical activity. Although a previous laboratory-based study reported that smartphone apps were accurate for tracking step counts, little evidence on their accuracy in free-living conditions currently exists. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the accuracy of step counts measured using iPhone in the real world. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of 54 adults (mean age 31 [SD 10] years) who owned an iPhone and analyzed data collected in 2016 and 2017. Step count was simultaneously measured using a validated pedometer (Kenz Lifecorder) and the iPhone. Participants were asked to carry and use their own iPhones as they typically would while wearing a pedometer on the waist for 7 consecutive days during waking hours. To assess the agreement between the two measurements, we calculated Spearman correlation coefficients and prepared a Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: The mean step count measured using the iPhone was 9253 (3787) steps per day, significantly lower by 12% (1277/10,530) than that measured using the pedometer, 10,530 (3490) steps per day (P<.001). The Spearman correlation coefficient between devices was 0.78 (P<.001). The largest underestimation of steps by the iPhone was observed among those who reported to have seldom carried their iPhones (seldom carry: mean -3036, SD 2990, steps/day; sometimes carry: mean -1424, SD 2619, steps/day; and almost always carry: mean -929, SD 1443, steps/day; P for linear trend=.08). CONCLUSIONS: Smartphones may be of practical use to individuals, clinicians, and researchers for monitoring physical activity. However, their data on step counts should be interpreted cautiously because of the possibility of underestimation due to noncarrying time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".