MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131109983 · doi:10.2196/20966

Usability and Accuracy of a Smartwatch for the Assessment of Physical Activity in the Elderly Population: Observational Study

2021· article· en· W3131109983 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matteo Martinato, Giulia Lorenzoni, Tommaso Zanchi, Alessia Bergamin, Alessia Buratin, Danila Azzolina, Darío Gregori

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyPopulationIntraclass correlationTinetti testPhysical medicine and rehabilitationObservational studyWearable computerGerontologyGaitComputer scienceInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity (PA) contributes to the primary and secondary prevention of several chronic diseases and reduces the risk of premature death. Physical inactivity is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a variety of chronic disorders such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension, bone and joint diseases (eg, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis), depression, and colon and breast cancer. Population aging and the related increase in chronic diseases have a major impact on the health care systems of most Western countries and will produce an even more significant effect in the future. Monitoring PA is a valuable method of determining whether people are performing enough PA so as to prevent chronic diseases or are showing early symptoms of those diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the accuracy of wearable devices in quantifying the PA of elderly people in a real-life setting. METHODS: Participants aged 70 to 90 years with the ability to walk safely without any walking aid for at least 300 meters, who had no walking disabilities or episodes of falling while walking in the last 12 months, were asked to walk 150 meters at their preferred pace wearing a vívoactive HR device (Garmin Ltd) and actual steps were monitored and tallied by a researcher using a hand-tally counter to assess the performance of the device at a natural speed. A Bland-Altman plot was used to analyze the difference between manually counted steps and wearable device-measured steps. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed (with a 95% confidence interval) between step measurements. The generalized linear mixed-model (GLMM) ICCs were estimated, providing a random effect term (random intercept) for the individual measurements (gold standard and device). Both adjusted and conditional ICCs were computed for the GLMM models considering separately the effect of age, sex, BMI, and obesity. Analyses were performed using R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) with the rms package. RESULTS: A total of 23 females and 26 males were enrolled in the study. The median age of the participants was 75 years. The Bland-Altman plot revealed that, excluding one observation, all differences across measurements were in the confidence bounds, demonstrating the substantial agreement between the step count measurements. The results were confirmed by an ICC equal to .98 (.96-.99), demonstrating excellent agreement between the two sets of measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The level of accuracy of wearable devices in quantifying the PA of elderly people in a real-life setting that was found in this study supports the idea of considering wrist-wearable nonmedical devices (widely available in nonspecialized stores) as reliable tools. Both health care professionals and informal caregivers could monitor the level of PA of their patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207