MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415563978 · doi:10.2196/76601

Machine and Deep Learning for Detection of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity From Accelerometer Data: Systematic Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4415563978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yahua Zi, Sjors van de Ven, Eco J. C. de Geus, Peijie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerDeep learningAdaptabilityPhysical activityTransparency (behavior)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Accurate monitoring of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is critical for advancing public health research and personalized interventions. Traditional accelerometry methods, reliant on regression-derived intensity cut points, exhibit significant misclassification errors and poor generalizability to the free-living environment. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) offer promising alternatives for automated MVPA detection. Objective This scoping review synthesizes evidence on ML and DL techniques for MVPA estimation and prediction using accelerometer data, focusing on performance, algorithm bias, sensor configurations, and translational potential. Methods Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science (February 1995-April 2025), supplemented by snowball citation tracking. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts against predefined inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were charted by one reviewer and verified by the other, extracting details on study characteristics, sensor configuration, ML and DL techniques, validation methods, and performance metrics. A narrative synthesis approach was used, guided by 6 research questions, to collate and summarize the findings. The synthesis process was rigorously reviewed by multiple authors to ensure consistency. Results Of 1938 screened studies, 40 met the inclusion criteria, with 4 studies added by follow-up manual searches. While traditional ML models (eg, random forest, support vector machine) achieved strong laboratory performance with F1-score of 87.4%-100% and accuracy of 87.9%-100%, their real-world performance declined by 8.0%-13.3% in F1-score and 6.6%-12.2% in accuracy, due to environment noise and device heterogeneity. DL architectures (eg, convolutional neural networks, transformers) achieved robust performance by leveraging raw signal dynamics with an F1-score of 71.9%-79.8% and an accuracy of 87.9%-100% in free-living settings. Hybrid models (eg, convolutional neural networks and long short-term memory) demonstrated state-of-the-art performance (F1-score 91.4%-98.4%, accuracy 97.7%-99.0%). Wrist-worn sensors dominated studies (30/40, 75%) and matched hip/thigh placements in lab settings (mean F1-scores: 86.5%-88.6%), but multisensor configurations (wrist + hip) yielded the highest accuracy (89.7%). Key challenges included algorithmic bias reducing applicability in older adult populations, and impaired reproducibility, with only 42.5% (17/40) of studies sharing code and data. Emerging opportunities are noted for edge computing and hybrid models integrating contextual data. Conclusions ML and DL significantly enhance MVPA monitoring by automating feature extraction and improving adaptability to free-living variability. However, persistent gaps in generalizability, inconsistent validation protocols, and transparency deficits hinder translation. The findings support the need for future research to prioritize inclusive model training, standardized reporting frameworks, and open science practices to realize the equitable potential of artificial intelligence–driven physical activity assessment.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207