A standardized workflow for long-term longitudinal actigraphy data processing: One year of continuous actigraphy from the CAN-BIND Wellness Monitoring Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Monitoring sleep and activity through wearable devices such as wrist-worn actigraphs has the potential for long-term measurement in the individual’s own environment. Long periods of data collection require a complex approach, including standardized pre-processing and data trimming, and robust algorithms to address non-wear and missing data. In this study, we used a data-driven approach to quality control, pre-processing and analysis of longitudinal actigraphy data collected over the course of 1 year in a sample of 95 participants. We implemented a data processing pipeline using open-source packages for longitudinal data thereby providing a framework for treating missing data patterns, non-wear scoring, sleep/wake scoring, and conducted a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the impact of non-wear and missing data on the relationship between sleep variables and depressive symptoms. Compliance with actigraph wear decreased over time, with missing data proportion increasing from a mean of 4.8% in the first week to 23.6% at the end of the 12 months of data collection. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the importance of defining a pre-processing threshold, as it substantially impacts the predictive value of variables on sleep-related outcomes. We developed a novel non-wear algorithm which outperformed several other algorithms and a capacitive wear sensor in quality control. These findings provide essential insight informing study design in digital health research.
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 | 0.026 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
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".