Adapting the Intensity Gradient for Use with Count-Based Accelerometry Data in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intensity gradient is a new cutpoint-free metric that was developed to quantify physical activity (PA) measured using accelerometers. This metric was developed for use with the ENMO (Euclidean norm minus one) metric, derived from raw acceleration data, and has not been validated for use with count-based accelerometer data. In this study, we determined whether the intensity gradient could be reproduced using count-based accelerometer data. Twenty participants (aged 7-22 years) wore a GT1M, an ActiGraph (count-based), and a GT9X, ActiGraph (raw accelerations) accelerometer during both in-lab and at-home protocols. We found strong agreement between GT1M and GT9X counts during the combined in-lab activities (mean bias = 2 counts) and between minutes per day with different intensities of activity (e.g., sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous) classified using cutpoints (mean bias < 5 min/d at all intensities). We generated bin sizes that could be used to generate IGs from the count data (mean bias = -0.15; 95% LOA [-0.65, 0.34]) compared with the original IG. Therefore, the intensity gradient could be used to analyze count data. The count-based intensity gradient metric will be valuable for re-analyzing historical datasets collected using older accelerometer models, such as the GT1M.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".