2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Optimization and Validation of a Classification Algorithm for Assessment of Physical Activity in Hospitalized Patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Low amounts of physical activity (PA) and prolonged periods of sedentary activity are common in hospitalized patients. Objective PA monitoring is needed to prevent the negative effects of inactivity, but a suitable algorithm is lacking. The aim of this study is to optimize and validate a classification algorithm that discriminates between sedentary, standing, and dynamic activities, and records postural transitions in hospitalized patients under free-living conditions. Optimization and validation in comparison to video analysis were performed in orthopedic and acutely hospitalized elderly patients with an accelerometer worn on the upper leg. Data segmentation window size (WS), amount of PA threshold (PA Th) and sensor orientation threshold (SO Th) were optimized in 25 patients, validation was performed in another 25. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and (absolute) percentage error were used to assess the algorithm’s performance. Optimization resulted in the best performance with parameter settings: WS 4 s, PA Th 4.3 counts per second, SO Th 0.8 g. Validation showed that all activities were classified within acceptable limits (>80% sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, ±10% error), except for the classification of standing activity. As patients need to increase their PA and interrupt sedentary behavior, the algorithm is suitable for classifying PA in hospitalized patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers

            Background Consumer-wearable activity trackers are electronic devices used for monitoring fitness- and other health-related metrics. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence for validity and reliability of popular consumer-wearable activity trackers (Fitbit and Jawbone) and their ability to estimate steps, distance, physical activity, energy expenditure, and sleep. Methods Searches included only full-length English language studies published in PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar through July 31, 2015. Two people reviewed and abstracted each included study. Results In total, 22 studies were included in the review (20 on adults, 2 on youth). For laboratory-based studies using step counting or accelerometer steps, the correlation with tracker-assessed steps was high for both Fitbit and Jawbone (Pearson or intraclass correlation coefficients (CC) > =0.80). Only one study assessed distance for the Fitbit, finding an over-estimate at slower speeds and under-estimate at faster speeds. Two field-based studies compared accelerometry-assessed physical activity to the trackers, with one study finding higher correlation (Spearman CC 0.86, Fitbit) while another study found a wide range in correlation (intraclass CC 0.36–0.70, Fitbit and Jawbone). Using several different comparison measures (indirect and direct calorimetry, accelerometry, self-report), energy expenditure was more often under-estimated by either tracker. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency were over-estimated and wake after sleep onset was under-estimated comparing metrics from polysomnography to either tracker using a normal mode setting. No studies of intradevice reliability were found. Interdevice reliability was reported on seven studies using the Fitbit, but none for the Jawbone. Walking- and running-based Fitbit trials indicated consistently high interdevice reliability for steps (Pearson and intraclass CC 0.76–1.00), distance (intraclass CC 0.90–0.99), and energy expenditure (Pearson and intraclass CC 0.71–0.97). When wearing two Fitbits while sleeping, consistency between the devices was high. Conclusion This systematic review indicated higher validity of steps, few studies on distance and physical activity, and lower validity for energy expenditure and sleep. The evidence reviewed indicated high interdevice reliability for steps, distance, energy expenditure, and sleep for certain Fitbit models. As new activity trackers and features are introduced to the market, documentation of the measurement properties can guide their use in research settings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study

              Background Technological advances have seen a burgeoning industry for accelerometer-based wearable activity monitors targeted at the consumer market. The purpose of this study was to determine the convergent validity of a selection of consumer-level accelerometer-based activity monitors. Methods 21 healthy adults wore seven consumer-level activity monitors (Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Jawbone UP, Misfit Shine, Nike Fuelband, Striiv Smart Pedometer and Withings Pulse) and two research-grade accelerometers/multi-sensor devices (BodyMedia SenseWear, and ActiGraph GT3X+) for 48-hours. Participants went about their daily life in free-living conditions during data collection. The validity of the consumer-level activity monitors relative to the research devices for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sleep and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) was quantified using Bland-Altman analysis, median absolute difference and Pearson’s correlation. Results All consumer-level activity monitors correlated strongly (r > 0.8) with research-grade devices for step count and sleep time, but only moderately-to-strongly for TDEE (r = 0.74-0.81) and MVPA (r = 0.52-0.91). Median absolute differences were generally modest for sleep and steps (<10% of research device mean values for the majority of devices) moderate for TDEE (<30% of research device mean values), and large for MVPA (26-298%). Across the constructs examined, the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse performed most strongly. Conclusions In free-living conditions, the consumer-level activity monitors showed strong validity for the measurement of steps and sleep duration, and moderate valid for measurement of TDEE and MVPA. Validity for each construct ranged widely between devices, with the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse being the strongest performers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Sensors (Basel)
                Sensors (Basel)
                sensors
                Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
                MDPI
                1424-8220
                27 February 2021
                March 2021
                : 21
                : 5
                : 1652
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Therapy, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands; rachel.senden@ 123456mumc.nl (R.S.); af.lenssen@ 123456mumc.nl (A.F.L.)
                [2 ]CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Instrument Development, Engineering and Evaluation, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands; wouter.bijnens@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (W.B.); jos.aarts@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (J.A.)
                [4 ]Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands; hans.essers@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (J.M.N.E.); kenneth.meijer@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (K.M.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: hanneke.huisman@ 123456mumc.nl ; Tel.: +31-(0)43-3877146
                [†]

                Shared first authorship.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4513-6935
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9463-5749
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0961-3167
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8236-8754
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3627-4452
                Article
                sensors-21-01652
                10.3390/s21051652
                7956397
                33673447
                a178def4-cbe4-40ad-b211-0f05762acc2b
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 January 2021
                : 22 February 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Biomedical engineering
                physical activity,accelerometers,algorithm,validation,hospitalized patients
                Biomedical engineering
                physical activity, accelerometers, algorithm, validation, hospitalized patients

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content136

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors939