MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Criterion Validity Of Tri-monitor Activpal Configuration In Determining Knee-flexion Angles During Sitting In Laboratory Setting

2022· article· en· W4294844056 on OpenAlexaff
Yanlin Wu, Myles W. O’Brien, Alex Peddle, W Seth Daley, Beverly Schwartz, Derek S. Kimmerly, Ryan J. Frayne

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsoSittingKnee flexionMedicineIntraclass correlationOrthodonticsRange of motionHip flexionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolonged sitting impairs cardiovascular and metabolic health. However, studies in this area have been limited to the laboratory setting, primarily due to the lack of measurement tools to characterize habitual sedentary behaviours. Therefore, quantifying the amount of time that people sit in a knee bent posture, causing arterial kink, may help determine if lower limb sedentary postures play a role in cardiovascular health. ActivPAL sensors located on the thigh and torso have been shown to successfully distinguish sitting from laying postures. An additional activPAL monitor positioned on the shin may be able to determine knee flexion angles and further characterize free-living sedentary behaviours. PURPOSE: Test the hypothesis that a tri-monitor activPAL setup can accurately measure knee flexion angles during sitting compared to motion capture (criterion). METHODS: Nineteen adults (12 ♀, 24 ± 4 years, 23.2 ± 4.0 kg/m2) wore three activPAL monitors (torso, thigh, shin) while 14 motion capture cameras simultaneously collected 15 markers located on body landmarks around the ankle, knee, hip, and shoulders. Each participant completed eight 45-s seated trials followed by 15-s of standing. The trial knee flexion angles (105°, 90°, 75°, 60°, 45°, 30°, 15°, 0°) were determined using a handheld goniometer. Validity was assessed via repeated measures ANOVA, Bland-Altman analyses, and intraclass correlations. RESULTS: Compared to motion capture, the calculated angles from activPALs were not different across 15-75° angles. The activPAL underestimated knee flexion angles at 90-105° (difference: ~5.0°; all, p ≤ 0.02), but overestimated knee flexion angles at 0° (difference: 9.1°, p < 0.001). A fixed bias (-0.3 ± 7.9°, p = 0.665) was not observed but a positive proportional bias was (β = 0.223, p < 0.001). The activPAL angles were highly correlated to those from the motion capture (ICC = 0.98, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The activPAL is an accurate measure to determine seated knee flexion angles from 75° to 15° but exhibits an average 5–10° error at knee flexion angles >75° and < 15°. Although there is error at the end ranges of motion, the tri-monitor activPAL configuration may be a useful tool to quantify sedentary knee flexion patterns during free-living conditions.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→