Development and Validation of Multivariable Prediction Algorithms to Estimate Future Walking Behavior in Adults: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is associated with numerous health risks, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, increased health care expenditure, and preventable, premature deaths. The majority of Americans fall short of clinical guideline goals (ie, 8000-10,000 steps per day). Behavior prediction algorithms could enable efficacious interventions to promote physical activity by facilitating delivery of nudges at appropriate times. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to develop and validate algorithms that predict walking (ie, >5 min) within the next 3 hours, predicted from the participants' previous 5 weeks' steps-per-minute data. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, closed cohort, secondary analysis of a 6-week microrandomized trial of the HeartSteps mobile health physical-activity intervention conducted in 2015. The prediction performance of 6 algorithms was evaluated, as follows: logistic regression, radial-basis function support vector machine, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), multilayered perceptron (MLP), decision tree, and random forest. For the MLP, 90 random layer architectures were tested for optimization. Prior 5-week hourly walking data, including missingness, were used for predictors. Whether the participant walked during the next 3 hours was used as the outcome. K-fold cross-validation (K=10) was used for the internal validation. The primary outcome measures are classification accuracy, the Mathew correlation coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: The total sample size included 6 weeks of data among 44 participants. Of the 44 participants, 31 (71%) were female, 26 (59%) were White, 36 (82%) had a college degree or more, and 15 (34%) were married. The mean age was 35.9 (SD 14.7) years. Participants (n=3, 7%) who did not have enough data (number of days <10) were excluded, resulting in 41 (93%) participants. MLP with optimized layer architecture showed the best performance in accuracy (82.0%, SD 1.1), whereas XGBoost (76.3%, SD 1.5), random forest (69.5%, SD 1.0), support vector machine (69.3%, SD 1.0), and decision tree (63.6%, SD 1.5) algorithms showed lower performance than logistic regression (77.2%, SD 1.2). MLP also showed superior overall performance to all other tried algorithms in Mathew correlation coefficient (0.643, SD 0.021), sensitivity (86.1%, SD 3.0), and specificity (77.8%, SD 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Walking behavior prediction models were developed and validated. MLP showed the highest overall performance of all attempted algorithms. A random search for optimal layer structure is a promising approach for prediction engine development. Future studies can test the real-world application of this algorithm in a "smart" intervention for promoting physical activity.
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 | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".