[go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266970.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Device-based measurement of physical activity in pre-schoolers: Comparison of machine learning and cut point methods

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew N Ahmadi
  • Stewart G Trost
Abstract
Introduction: Machine learning (ML) accelerometer data processing methods have potential to improve the accuracy of device-based assessments of physical activity (PA) in young children. Yet the uptake of ML methods by health researchers has been minimal and the use of cut-points (CP) continues to be the norm, despite evidence of significant misclassification error. The lack of studies demonstrating a relative advantage for ML approaches over CP methods maybe a key contributing factor. Purpose: The current study compared the accuracy of PA intensity predictions provided by ML classification models and previously published CPs for preschool-aged children. Methods: In a free-living study, 31 preschool-aged children (mean age = 4.0 ± 0.9 y) wore wrist and hip ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers while completing a video recorded 20-minute free play session. Ground truth PA intensity was coded continuously using the Children’s Activity Rating Scale (CARS). Accelerometer data was classified as sedentary (SED), light intensity (LPA), or moderate-to-vigorous intensity (MVPA) using ML random forest PA classifiers and published CPs for preschool-aged children. Performance differences were evaluated in a hold-out sample by comparing weighted kappa statistics, classification accuracy for each intensity band, and equivalence testing. Results: ML classification models (hip: κ = 0.76; wrist: κ = 0.72) exhibited significantly higher agreement with ground truth PA intensity than CP methods (hip: κ = 0.38–0.49; wrist: κ = 0.31–0.44). For the ML models, classification accuracy for SED and LPA ranged from 83% - 88%, while classification accuracy for MVPA ranged from 68% - 78%. For the CP’s, classification accuracy ranged from 50% - 94% for SED, 19% - 75% for LPA, and 44% - 76.1% for MVPA. ML classification models showed equivalence (within ± 0.5 SD) with directly observed time in SED, LPA, and MVPA. None of the CP’s exhibited evidence of equivalence. Conclusions: Under free living conditions, ML classification models for hip or wrist accelerometer data provide more accurate assessments of PA intensity in young children than CP methods. The results demonstrate the relative advantage of ML methods over threshold-based approaches and adds to a growing evidence base supporting the feasibility and accuracy of ML accelerometer data processing methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew N Ahmadi & Stewart G Trost, 2022. "Device-based measurement of physical activity in pre-schoolers: Comparison of machine learning and cut point methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266970
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266970
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266970&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266970?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.