|Publication type:||Article in scientific journal|
|Type of review:||Peer review (publication)|
|Title:||Detecting prolonged sitting bouts with the ActiGraph GT3X|
|Authors :||Kuster, Roman|
Grooten, Wilhelmus J. A.
|et. al :||No|
|Published in :||Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports|
|Publisher / Ed. Institution :||Wiley|
|Subjects :||ActivPAL; Automated feature selection; Bout analysis; Machine learning; Posture prediction; Sedentary behavior|
|Subject (DDC) :||571: Physiology and related subjects |
|Abstract:||The ActiGraph has a high ability to measure physical activity; however, it lacks an accurate posture classification to measure sedentary behavior. The aim of the present study was to develop an ActiGraph (waist-worn, 30 Hz) posture classification to detect prolonged sitting bouts, and to compare the classification to proprietary ActiGraph data. The activPAL, a highly valid posture classification device, served as reference criterion. Both sensors were worn by 38 office workers over a median duration of 9 days. An automated feature selection extracted the relevant signal information for a minute-based posture classification. The machine learning algorithm with optimal feature number to predict the time in prolonged sitting bouts (≥5 and ≥10 minutes) was searched and compared to the activPAL using Bland-Altman statistics. The comparison included optimized and frequently used cut-points (100 and 150 counts per minute (cpm), with and without low-frequency-extension (LFE) filtering). The new algorithm predicted the time in prolonged sitting bouts most accurate (bias ≤ 7 minutes/d). Of all proprietary ActiGraph methods, only 150 cpm without LFE predicted the time in prolonged sitting bouts non-significantly different from the activPAL (bias ≤ 18 minutes/d). However, the frequently used 100 cpm with LFE accurately predicted total sitting time (bias ≤ 7 minutes/d). To study the health effects of ActiGraph measured prolonged sitting, we recommend using the new algorithm. In case a cut-point is used, we recommend 150 cpm without LFE to measure prolonged sitting and 100 cpm with LFE to measure total sitting time. However, both cpm cut-points are not recommended for a detailed bout analysis.|
|Fulltext version :||Published version|
|License (according to publishing contract) :||Licence according to publishing contract|
|Departement:||School of Engineering|
|Organisational Unit:||Institute of Mechanical Systems (IMES)|
|Appears in Collections:||Publikationen School of Engineering|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.