Energy expenditure prediction in preschool children: a machine learning approach using accelerometry and external validation.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS Physiological measurement Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1088/1361-6579/ad7ad2
Hannah J Coyle-Asbil,Lukas Burk,Mirko Brandes,Berit Brandes,Christoph Buck,Marvin N Wright,Lori Ann Vallis
{"title":"Energy expenditure prediction in preschool children: a machine learning approach using accelerometry and external validation.","authors":"Hannah J Coyle-Asbil,Lukas Burk,Mirko Brandes,Berit Brandes,Christoph Buck,Marvin N Wright,Lori Ann Vallis","doi":"10.1088/1361-6579/ad7ad2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"
This study aimed to develop convolutional neural networks (CNN) models to predict the energy expenditure (EE) of children from raw accelerometer data. Additionally, this study sought to external validation of the CNN models in addition to the linear regression (LM), random forest (RF), and full connected neural network (FcNN) models published inet al (2019).
Approach:
Included in this study were 41 German children (3.0 to 6.99 years) for the training and internal validation who were equipped with GENEActiv, GT3X+, and activPAL accelerometers. The external validation dataset consisted of 39 Canadian children (3.0 to 5.99 years) that were equipped with OPAL, GT9X, GENEActiv, and GT3X+ accelerometers. EE was recorded simultaneously in both datasets using a portable metabolic unit. The protocols consisted of a semi-structured activities ranging from low to high intensities. The root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated and used to evaluate model performances.
Main results:
1) The CNNs outperformed the LM (13.17% to 23.81% lower mean RMSE values), FcNN (8.13% to 27.27% lower RMSE values) and the RF models (3.59% to 18.84% lower RMSE values) in the internal dataset. 2) In contrast, it was found that when applied to the external Canadian dataset, the CNN models had consistently higher RMSE values compared to the LM, FcNN, and RF.
Significance:
Although CNNs can enhance EE prediction accuracy, their ability to generalize to new datasets and accelerometer brands/models, is more limited compared to LM, RF, and FcNN models.&#xD.","PeriodicalId":20047,"journal":{"name":"Physiological measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiological measurement","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ad7ad2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to develop convolutional neural networks (CNN) models to predict the energy expenditure (EE) of children from raw accelerometer data. Additionally, this study sought to external validation of the CNN models in addition to the linear regression (LM), random forest (RF), and full connected neural network (FcNN) models published inet al (2019). Approach: Included in this study were 41 German children (3.0 to 6.99 years) for the training and internal validation who were equipped with GENEActiv, GT3X+, and activPAL accelerometers. The external validation dataset consisted of 39 Canadian children (3.0 to 5.99 years) that were equipped with OPAL, GT9X, GENEActiv, and GT3X+ accelerometers. EE was recorded simultaneously in both datasets using a portable metabolic unit. The protocols consisted of a semi-structured activities ranging from low to high intensities. The root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated and used to evaluate model performances. Main results: 1) The CNNs outperformed the LM (13.17% to 23.81% lower mean RMSE values), FcNN (8.13% to 27.27% lower RMSE values) and the RF models (3.59% to 18.84% lower RMSE values) in the internal dataset. 2) In contrast, it was found that when applied to the external Canadian dataset, the CNN models had consistently higher RMSE values compared to the LM, FcNN, and RF. Significance: Although CNNs can enhance EE prediction accuracy, their ability to generalize to new datasets and accelerometer brands/models, is more limited compared to LM, RF, and FcNN models. .
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physiological measurement
Physiological measurement 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
124
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Physiological Measurement publishes papers about the quantitative assessment and visualization of physiological function in clinical research and practice, with an emphasis on the development of new methods of measurement and their validation. Papers are published on topics including: applied physiology in illness and health electrical bioimpedance, optical and acoustic measurement techniques advanced methods of time series and other data analysis biomedical and clinical engineering in-patient and ambulatory monitoring point-of-care technologies novel clinical measurements of cardiovascular, neurological, and musculoskeletal systems. measurements in molecular, cellular and organ physiology and electrophysiology physiological modeling and simulation novel biomedical sensors, instruments, devices and systems measurement standards and guidelines.
期刊最新文献
Adaptive threshold algorithm for detecting EEG-interburst intervals in extremely preterm neonates. Assessment of alternative metrics in the application of infrared thermography to detect muscle damage in sports. Energy expenditure prediction in preschool children: a machine learning approach using accelerometry and external validation. Enhancing P-wave localization for accurate detection of second-degree and third-degree atrioventricular conduction blocks. Changes in physiological signal entropy in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1