MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409787264 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.24.25326266

Development and accuracy of a novel machine learning model to detect toddlers’ physical activity and sedentary time using accelerometers: Little Movers Activity Analysis

2025· preprint· en· W4409787264 on OpenAlexafffund
Elyse Letts, Sara King‐Dowling, Natascja Di Cristofaro, Patricia Tucker, John Cairney, Dylan Kobsar, Brian W. Timmons, Joyce Obeid

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAccelerometerPhysical activityComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: (1) develop and test a novel, open-source, supervised machine learning model to detect toddlers’ physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (SED); (2) compare this novel machine learning model to existing cut-point methods to analyse toddlers’ PA (independent sample cross-validation of existing methods). Methods: We recruited 111 healthy toddlers to attend two semi-structured lab visits while wearing an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer. Sessions were video recorded and manually annotated using a modified Children’s Activity Rating Scale to determine a ground truth of toddler activity. We extracted 40 time and frequency domain features from the raw accelerations (across 6 different epochs ranging from 1-60s) and trained 4 gradient boosted tree machine learning models. Models were assessed using accuracy, F1 scores, and confusion matrices. For the validation of existing methods, we calculated accuracy, F1, and mean absolute differences (MAD) in total PA (TPA) and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) estimation. Results: The 5s epoch performed best with the recommended models classifying non-volitional movement (NVM)/SED/TPA and NVM/SED/light PA (LPA)/MVPA reaching an 82% and 74% accuracy with MAD of 3.0 and 3.2min/hour, respectively. Independent sample cross-validation found accuracies from 33-73% and MAD ranging from 7.6-18.6min/hour in TPA and 10.7-25.8min/hour in MVPA. Conclusions: We recommend the NVM/SED/TPA or NVM/SED/LPA/MVPA models given alignment with toddler TPA guidelines and MVPA link to health outcomes, respectively. We additionally present an open-access, user-friendly interface for using these models that does not require coding knowledge. This study presents a substantial step forward toward comprehensive and accessible measurement of toddlers’ physical activity. Summary Box What is already known on this topic - Current methods used to assess toddlers’ physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (SED) face challenges with low accuracies and inabilities to detect non-volitional movement (NVM, e.g., being carried). Machine learning methods are promising but existing methods have been validated using small samples and the algorithms are not openly available. What this study adds – Open-source machine learning models to detect toddlers’ PA, SED, and NVM that outperform existing available cut-point methods, including an easy-to-use interface to apply these models to raw accelerometer data. How this study might affect research, practice or policy – We provide an easy-to-use, open access tool for researchers, clinicians, and beyond to use machine learning to more accurately detect toddlers’ volitional PA and SED. This will allow for more accurate quantifications of PA that can be linked to health outcomes and inform toddler PA guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→