Comparing Step Counting Algorithms for High-Resolution Wrist Accelerometry Data in NHANES 2011-2014.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003616
Lily Koffman, Ciprian Crainiceanu, John Muschelli
{"title":"Comparing Step Counting Algorithms for High-Resolution Wrist Accelerometry Data in NHANES 2011-2014.","authors":"Lily Koffman, Ciprian Crainiceanu, John Muschelli","doi":"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To quantify the relative performance of step counting algorithms in studies that collect free-living high-resolution wrist accelerometry data and to highlight the implications of using these algorithms in translational research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five step counting algorithms (four open source and one proprietary) were applied to the publicly available, free-living, high-resolution wrist accelerometry data collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2011-2014. The mean daily total step counts were compared in terms of correlation, predictive performance, and estimated hazard ratios of mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated number of steps were highly correlated (median = 0.91, range 0.77 to 0.98), had high and comparable predictive performance of mortality (median concordance = 0.72, range 0.70 to 0.73). The distributions of the number of steps in the population varied widely (mean step counts range from 2,453 to 12,169). Hazard ratios of mortality associated with a 500-step increase per day varied among step counting algorithms between HR = 0.88 and 0.96, corresponding to a 300% difference in mortality risk reduction ([1 - 0.88]/[1 - 0.96] = 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Different step counting algorithms provide correlated step estimates and have similar predictive performance that is better than traditional predictors of mortality. However, they provide widely different distributions of step counts and estimated reductions in mortality risk for a 500-step increase.</p>","PeriodicalId":18426,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003616","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify the relative performance of step counting algorithms in studies that collect free-living high-resolution wrist accelerometry data and to highlight the implications of using these algorithms in translational research.

Methods: Five step counting algorithms (four open source and one proprietary) were applied to the publicly available, free-living, high-resolution wrist accelerometry data collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2011-2014. The mean daily total step counts were compared in terms of correlation, predictive performance, and estimated hazard ratios of mortality.

Results: The estimated number of steps were highly correlated (median = 0.91, range 0.77 to 0.98), had high and comparable predictive performance of mortality (median concordance = 0.72, range 0.70 to 0.73). The distributions of the number of steps in the population varied widely (mean step counts range from 2,453 to 12,169). Hazard ratios of mortality associated with a 500-step increase per day varied among step counting algorithms between HR = 0.88 and 0.96, corresponding to a 300% difference in mortality risk reduction ([1 - 0.88]/[1 - 0.96] = 3).

Conclusions: Different step counting algorithms provide correlated step estimates and have similar predictive performance that is better than traditional predictors of mortality. However, they provide widely different distributions of step counts and estimated reductions in mortality risk for a 500-step increase.

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
比较 2011-2014 年 NHANES 中高分辨率腕部加速度测量数据的步数计算公式。
目的:在收集自由生活高分辨率腕式加速度测量数据的研究中量化计步算法的相对性能,并强调在转化研究中使用这些算法的意义:将五种计步算法(四种开源算法和一种专有算法)应用于美国国家健康与营养调查(NHANES)在 2011-2014 年收集的公开、自由生活、高分辨率腕式加速度计数据。比较了平均每日总步数的相关性、预测性能和估计死亡率危险比:估算的步数具有高度相关性(中位数 = 0.91,范围为 0.77 至 0.98),对死亡率具有较高且可比的预测性能(中位数一致性 = 0.72,范围为 0.70 至 0.73)。人群中的步数分布差异很大(平均步数从 2,453 步到 12,169 步不等)。每天增加 500 步与死亡率相关的危险比在 HR = 0.88 和 0.96 之间,不同计步算法的危险比不同,相当于死亡率风险降低的 300% 差异([1 - 0.88]/[1 - 0.96] = 3):不同的计步算法提供了相关的步数估计值,具有类似的预测性能,优于传统的死亡率预测指标。然而,它们提供的步数分布和每增加 500 步估计的死亡风险降低率却大相径庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
4.90%
发文量
2568
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® features original investigations, clinical studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists, physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health fields.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the Influence of Limb Blood Flow on Contraction-Induced Muscle Growth and the Impact of that Growth on Changes in Maximal Strength. Is the Force-Velocity Profile for Free Jumping a Sound Basis for Individualized Jump Training Prescriptions? Comparing Step Counting Algorithms for High-Resolution Wrist Accelerometry Data in NHANES 2011-2014. Physical Activity Declines over a 12-Month Period in Parkinson's Disease: Considerations for Longitudinal Activity Monitoring. Varus Strength of the Medial Elbow Musculature for Stress Shielding of the Ulnar Collateral Ligament in Competitive Baseball Pitchers.
×
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