Comparison of physical behavior estimates from three different thigh-worn accelerometers brands: a proof-of-concept for the Prospective Physical Activity, Sitting, and Sleep consortium (ProPASS)

Abstract

Background Pooling data from thigh-worn accelerometers across multiple studies has great potential to advance evidence on the health benefits of physical activity. This requires harmonization of information on body postures, physical activity types, volumes and time patterns across different brands of devices. The aim of this study is to compare the physical behavior estimates provided by three different brands of thigh-worn accelerometers. Methods Twenty participants volunteered for a 7-day free-living measurement. Three accelerometers - ActiGraph GT3X+, Axivity AX3 and ActivPAL Micro4 - were randomly placed in a vertical line on the midsection of the right thigh. Raw data from each accelerometer was processed and classified into 8 physical activities and postures using the Acti4 software. Absolute differences between estimates and the respective coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated. Results We observed very minor differences between physical behavior estimates from three different accelerometer brands. When averaged over 24 h (1,440 min), the absolute difference (CV) between accelerometers were: 1.2 mins (0.001) for lying/sitting, 3.4 mins (0.02) for standing, 3.5 mins (0.06) for moving, 1.9 mins (0.03) for walking, 0.1 mins (0.19) for running, 1.2 mins (0.19) for stair climbing, 1.9 mins (0.07) for cycling. Moreover, there was an average absolute difference of 282 steps (0.03) per 24 h. Conclusions Physical behaviors were classified with negligible difference between the accelerometer brands. These results support harmonization of data from different thigh-worn accelerometers across multiple cohorts when analyzed in an identical manner. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-019-0835-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Advances in accelerometry for cardiovascular patients: a systematic review with practical recommendations

“…82,89 When the study focus is on sedentary behaviour, thigh placement is currently considered the gold standard. 90 In populations with decreased functional capacity, ankle placement is also gaining popularity as it performs well even with slow gait where other placements usually fail. 79,91 In a review by Clark et al, the authors advocated that there is no 'one site fits all' approach to the selection of accelerometer site or analytical technique, and that study design and focus should always inform the most suitable location of attachment, and be driven by the type of activity being characterized.…”

Population-level physical activity surveillance in young people: are accelerometer-based measures ready for prime time?

“…Simple cut-point approaches applied to either processed activity counts or raw acceleration signal (i.e., Euclidean Norm Minus One -ENMO) provide misleading estimates of movement behaviour because they do not account for upper limb movements during sedentary or stationary light-intensity activities [20,21]. In investigations where sitting time is of primary interest, assessments of posture with thigh mounted accelerometers, alone or in combination with other placements, should be considered [22,23]. The findings of the Steene-Johannessen study highlight the long-standing methodological issue of how to operationalise compliance with physical activity guidelines in accelerometer-based studies [24].…”

The Use of Inertial Measurement Units for the Study of Free Living Environment Activity Assessment: A Literature Review

“…Authors of these studies set up algorithms that allow, from previous annotated observations of participants performing activities (labeled training data), to determine which type of activity is performed during an analysis of a signal section (see Section 5 for more details on machine learning procedures for activity classification). Some of these studies point towards the study of machine learning systems [ 62 , 63 , 64 ], while others focus on other factors such as sensor implementation [ 65 ]. This is the group of aims that contains the greatest number of studies (28 papers).…”

“…Of all studies using more than one sensor, 67% use four or less sensors. [ 27 , 28 , 54 , 61 , 65 , 74 , 86 ]). Moreover, only three studies use more than ten IMUs—these studies use the IGS-180 suit consisting of seventeen IMUs [ 18 , 63 , 70 ].…”