Beyond the (log)book: Comparing accelerometer non-wear detection techniques in toddlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Accelerometers are increasingly used to measure physical activity and sedentary time in toddlers. Data cleaning or wear time validation can impact outcomes of interest, particularly in young children who spend less time awake. However, no study has systematically compared wear time validation strategies in toddlers. As such, the objective of this study is to compare different fully-automated methods of distinguishing wear and non-wear time (counts and raw data algorithms) to the semi-automated (counts with logbooks) criterion method in toddlers. Methods We recruited 109 toddlers (age 12-35 mos) as part of the iPLAY study to wear an ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT accelerometer on the right hip for ∼7 consecutive days (removed for sleep and water activities). Parents completed a logbook to indicate monitor removal and nap times. We tested 15 nonwear detection methods grouped into 4 main categories: semi-automated logbook, consecutive 0 counts, modified consecutive 0 counts (Troiano and Choi), and raw data methods (van Hees and Ahmadi). Using logbooks as the criterion standard (all wear and wake-time only wear), we calculated the accuracy and F1 scores and compared overall wear time with a two one-sided test of equivalence. Results Participant daily wear time ranged from 556 to 684 minutes/day depending on method. Accuracy and F1 score ranged from 86 to 95%. Five methods were considered equivalent to the AllWear nonwear criterion (true wear time including sleep-time wear), with only one equivalent to the AwakeWear criterion. Mean absolute differences were lower for the AllWear criterion but ranged 49 to 192 minutes/day Conclusions The 5min0count, 10min_0count, 30min_0count, Troiano60s, and Ahmadi methods provide high accuracy and equivalency when compared to semi-automated cleaning using logbooks. This paper provides insights and quantitative results that can help researchers decide which method may be most appropriate given their population of interest, sample size, and study protocol.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".