MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004569304 · doi:10.2196/14370

Measurement of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior by Accelerometry Among a Nationwide Sample from the KiGGS and MoMo Study: Study Protocol

2020· article· en· W3004569304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexander Burchartz, Kristin Manz, Bastian Anedda, Claudia Niessner, Doris Oriwol, Steffen Schmidt, Alexander Wöll

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobert Koch InstitutBundesministerium für GesundheitBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsSample (material)Physical activityProtocol (science)PsychologySedentary behaviorMedicineGerontologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently, no nationwide objective physical activity data exists for children and adolescents living in Germany. The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS) and the Motorik-Modul study (MoMo) is a national cohort study that has incorporated accelerometers in its most recent data collection wave (wave 2, since 2014). This wave 2 marks the first nationwide collection of objective data on the physical activity of children and adolescents living in Germany. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this protocol is to describe the methods used in the KiGGS and MoMo study to capture the intensity, frequency, and duration of physical activity with accelerometers. METHODS: Participants (N=11,003, aged 6 to 31 years) were instructed to wear an ActiGraph GT3X+ or wGT3X-BT accelerometer laterally on the right hip. Accelerometers were worn on consecutive days during waking hours, including at least 4 valid weekdays and 1 weekend day (wear time >8 hours) in the evaluation. A nonwear time protocol was also implemented. RESULTS: Data collection was completed by October 2017. Data harmonization took place in 2018. The first accelerometer results from this wave were published in 2019, and detailed analyses are ready to be submitted in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study protocol provides an overview of technical details and basic choices when using accelerometers in large-scale epidemiological studies. At the same time, the restrictions imposed by the specified filters and the evaluation routines must be taken into account. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14370.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.432
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207