Energy expenditure prediction in preschool children: a machine learning approach using accelerometry and external validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. This study aimed to develop convolutional neural networks (CNNs) models to predict the energy expenditure (EE) of children from raw accelerometer data. Additionally, this study sought to external validation of the CNN models in addition to the linear regression (LM), random forest (RF), and full connected neural network (FcNN) models published in Steenbock et al (2019 J. Meas. Phys. Behav. 2 94–102). Approach. Included in this study were 41 German children (3.0–6.99 years) for the training and internal validation who were equipped with GENEActiv, GT3X+, and activPAL accelerometers. The external validation dataset consisted of 39 Canadian children (3.0–5.99 years) that were equipped with OPAL, GT9X, GENEActiv, and GT3X+ accelerometers. EE was recorded simultaneously in both datasets using a portable metabolic unit. The protocols consisted of a semi-structured activities ranging from low to high intensities. The root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated and used to evaluate model performances. Main results. (1) The CNNs outperformed the LM (13.17%–23.81% lower mean RMSE values), FcNN (8.13%–27.27% lower RMSE values) and the RF models (3.59%–18.84% lower RMSE values) in the internal dataset. (2) In contrast, it was found that when applied to the external Canadian dataset, the CNN models had consistently higher RMSE values compared to the LM, FcNN, and RF. Significance. Although CNNs can enhance EE prediction accuracy, their ability to generalize to new datasets and accelerometer brands/models, is more limited compared to LM, RF, and FcNN models.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".