Cited by 105Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsSleep and related disorders

Reproducibility of Accelerometer-Assessed Physical Activity and Sedentary Time

Open access
Keadle, Sarah Kozey, Shiroma, Eric J., Kamada, Masamitsu, Matthews, Charles E., Harris, Tamara B., Lee, I-Min·2017·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Introduction Accelerometers are used increasingly in large epidemiologic studies, but, given logistic and cost constraints, most studies are restricted to a single, 7-day accelerometer monitoring period. It is unknown how well a 7-day accelerometer monitoring period estimates longer-term patterns of behavior, which is critical for interpreting, and potentially improving, disease risk estimates in etiologic studies.Methods A subset of participants from the Women's Health Study (N=209; mean age, 70.6 [SD=5.7] years) completed at least two 7-day accelerometer administrations (ActiGraph GT3X+) within a period of 2-3 years. Monitor output was translated into total counts, steps, and time spent in sedentary, light-intensity, and moderate to vigorous-intensity activity (MVPA) and bouted-MVPA (i.e., 10-minute bouts). For each metric, intraclass correlations (ICCs) and 95% CIs were calculated using linear-mixed models and adjusted for wear time, age, BMI, and season. The data were collected in 2011-2015 and analyzed in 2015-2016.Results The ICCs ranged from 0.67 (95% CI=0.60, 0.73) for bouted-MVPA to 0.82 (95% CI=0.77, 0.85) for total daily counts and were similar across age, BMI, and for less and more active women. For all metrics, classification accuracy within 1 quartile was >90%.Conclusions These data provide reassurance that a 7-day accelerometer-assessment protocol provides a reproducible (and practical) measure of physical activity and sedentary time. However, ICCs varied by metric; therefore, future prospective studies of chronic diseases might benefit from existing methods to adjust risk estimates for within-person variability in activity to get a better estimate of the true strength of association.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.010

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keadle, S. K., Shiroma, E. J., Kamada, M., Matthews, C. E., Harris, T. B., & Lee, I.-M.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Keadle, Sarah Kozey
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
541-548
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2568755761
Cited by
105
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hl043851-10)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL080467, R01‐HL043851)
  • National Cancer Institute (UM1CA182913, R01CA154647, R01CA047988)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
physical activity measurement, sedentary time, within-person variability, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, light physical activity, step count, Women's Health Study, older women
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Sedentary Behavior, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review