“…For example, Trost et al (Trost, Wong, Pfeiffer, & Zheng, 2012), used an artificial neural network for estimating MET y in youth wearing an ActiGraph GT1M while performing 12 structured activities and found a RMSE of 0.9 MET y . In contrast, Mu et al (Mu, Lo, Ding, Amaral, & Crouter, 2014) compared several machine learning approaches, including Bipart and an artificial neural network, for predicting MET y in youth wearing an ActiGraph GT3X while performing 18 structured activities and found a RMSE of 1.37 MET y and 1.39 MET y . However, these machine learning models have not been evaluated in youth in a free-living setting where all models typically perform worse than in a lab-based setting so it is unclear if using machine learning approaches are superior for decreasing group estimates in individual error when predicting MET y with accelerometers.…”