MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412744444 · doi:10.2196/64602

Agreement Between TDK Silmee W22 and ActiGraph wGT3X-BT for Estimating Daily Step Counts and Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity in Free-Living Adults: Comparative Study

2025· article· en· W4412744444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiroko Shimura, S Okada, Kazushi Maruo, Kaori Daimaru, Naoki Deguchi, Yoshinori Fujiwara, Hiroyuki Sasai

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivity monitorPhysical activityMedicinePhysical therapyEnergy expenditureLimits of agreementWearable computerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Wearable Internet of Things (IoT) devices are powerful tools for remotely collecting intensive longitudinal data. The TDK Silmee W22, a wristband-type wearable IoT device with a built-in 3-axis acceleration sensor, provides minute-by-minute physical activity data such as estimated metabolic equivalents (METs) and step counts. These measurements can be aggregated to daily estimates; however, their accuracies have not been fully explored in adults under free-living settings. Objective: This study aims to assess the agreement between the TDK Silmee W22 and the research-grade activity monitor, ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, in estimating daily steps and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA ≥3 METs) in adults under free-living settings. Methods: A convenience sample of young to older adults was recruited from communities across several prefectures in Japan. Participants concurrently wore a TDK Silmee W22 on their nondominant wrist and an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT on the left side of the waist during waking hours for 7 consecutive days. Data were aggregated to daily steps and time spent in MVPA (≥1952 vertical axis counts/minute for ActiGraph) for each participant. A valid day was defined as having ≥ 10 hours of accumulated ActiGraph wear time with ≥100 and <50,000 accumulated steps from both devices. Each valid day was classified as either an active day (≥10,000 steps/day or ≥21.4 minutes MVPA per day) or an inactive day. Bland-Altman plots combined with multilevel analysis and κ statistics were used to assess the agreement between physical activity estimates from the devices. Results: A total of 129 participants (n=66, 51.2% women) aged 23-89 years provided the final dataset of 884 observations (5 to 7 daily observations/participant). The TDK Silmee W22 estimated an overall mean of 6369 (SE 242) steps/day and 40.3 (SE 1.9) minutes/day spent in MVPA. Although Bland-Altman plots suggested no obvious proportional bias, fixed biases were observed; the TDK Silmee W22 estimated -1203 steps/day (95% limits of agreement [LoA] -4202 to 1796) and +5 minutes/day (LoA-23 to 34) spent in MVPA compared with those estimated by the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT. TDK Silmee W22 and ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, respectively, classified 14% and 23.1% as active by daily step counts (κ=0.65, 95% CI 0.59-0.72), and 70.4% and 60.9% as active by daily time spent in MVPA (κ=0.64, 95% CI 0.59-0.69), both indicating moderate agreement. Conclusions: TDK Silmee W22 underestimated step counts and overestimated time spent in MVPA compared with the research-grade ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, which may lead to misclassification of active and inactive days. Caution is warranted when using TDK Silmee W22 data over relatively short periods, as discrepancies-particularly when compared with research-grade monitors-may affect feedback or goal setting.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→