Development and Validation of Open-Source Activity Intensity Count and Activity Intensity Classification Algorithms from Raw Acceleration Signals of Wearable Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A popular outcome in rehabilitation studies is the activity intensity count, which is typically measured from commercially available accelerometers. However, the algorithms are not openly available, which impairs long-term follow-ups and restricts the potential to adapt the algorithms for pathological populations. The objectives of this research are to design and validate open-source algorithms for activity intensity quantification and classification. Methods: Two versions of a quantification algorithm are proposed (fixed [FB] and modifiable bandwidth [MB]) along with two versions of a classification algorithm (discrete [DM] vs. continuous methods [CM]). The results of these algorithms were compared to those of a commercial activity intensity count solution (ActiLife) with datasets from four activities (n = 24 participants). Results: The FB and MB algorithms gave similar results as ActiLife (r > 0.96). The DM algorithm is similar to a ActiLife (r ≥ 0.99). The CM algorithm differs (r ≥ 0.89) but is more precise. Conclusion: The combination of the FB algorithm with the DM results is a solution close to that of ActiLife. However, the MB version remains valid while being more adaptable, and the CM is more precise. This paper proposes an open-source alternative for rehabilitation that is compatible with several wearable devices and not dependent on manufacturer commercial decisions.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".