Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 676

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accelerometer Data Reduction: A Comparison of Four Reduction Algorithms on Select Outcome Variables

MÂSSE, LOUISE C., FUEMMELER, BERNARD F., ANDERSON, CHERYL B., MATTHEWS, CHARLES E., TROST, STEWART G., CATELLIER, DIANE J., TREUTH, MARGARITA·2005·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
DOI 10.1249/01.mss.0000185674.09066.8a
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: Accelerometers are recognized as a valid and objective tool to assess free-living physical activity. Despite the widespread use of accelerometers, there is no standardized way to process and summarize data from them, which limits our ability to compare results across studies. This paper a) reviews decision rules researchers have used in the past, b) compares the impact of using different decision rules on a common data set, and c) identifies issues to consider for accelerometer data reduction. METHODS: The methods sections of studies published in 2003 and 2004 were reviewed to determine what decision rules previous researchers have used to identify wearing period, minimal wear requirement for a valid day, spurious data, number of days used to calculate the outcome variables, and extract bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). For this study, four data reduction algorithms that employ different decision rules were used to analyze the same data set. RESULTS: The review showed that among studies that reported their decision rules, much variability was observed. Overall, the analyses suggested that using different algorithms impacted several important outcome variables. The most stringent algorithm yielded significantly lower wearing time, the lowest activity counts per minute and counts per day, and fewer minutes of MVPA per day. An exploratory sensitivity analysis revealed that the most stringent inclusion criterion had an impact on sample size and wearing time, which in turn affected many outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the decision rules employed to process accelerometer data have a significant impact on important outcome variables. Until guidelines are developed, it will remain difficult to compare findings across studies.

Overview

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 · 10.1249/01.mss.0000185674.09066.8a

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
MÂSSE, L. C., FUEMMELER, B. F., ANDERSON, C. B., MATTHEWS, C. E., TROST, S. G., CATELLIER, D. J., & TREUTH, M.
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-11
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
S544-S554
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1249/01.mss.0000185674.09066.8a
OpenAlex
W1990263623
Cited by
676
References
5
FWCI
7.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.