Comparison of Fitbit One and ActivPAL3TM in Adults With Multiple Sclerosis in a Free-Living Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking is the most common and preferred way for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to be active. Consumer-grade wearable activity monitors may be used as a tool to assist people with MS to track their walking by counting the number of steps. The authors evaluated the validity of Fitbit One activity tracker in individuals with MS by comparing step counts measured over a 7-day period against ActivPAL3 TM (AP). Twenty-five ambulatory adults with MS with an average age 51.7 (10.2) years and gait speed 0.98 (0.47) m/s, median Expanded Disability Status Scale 5.5 (2.5–6.5), and 15 years post-MS diagnosis wore Fitbit One (using both waist and ankle placement) and AP for 7 consecutive days. Validity of Fitbit One for measuring step counts against AP was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland–Altman plots, and t tests. Regardless of wearing location (waist or ankle), there was good agreement between steps recorded by Fitbit One and AP (ICC: .86 [.82, .90]). The ankle-worn Fitbit measured steps more accurately (ICC: .91 [.81, .95]) than the waist-worn Fitbit (ICC: .81 [.62, .85]) especially in individuals ( n = 12) who walked slowly (gait speed = 0.74 m/s). Fitbit One as a user-friendly, inexpensive, consumer-grade activity tracker can accurately record steps in persons with MS in a free-living environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".