Cited by 121Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Modeling Physical Activity Outcomes from Wearable Monitors

HEIL, DANIEL P., BRAGE, SOREN, ROTHNEY, MEGAN P.·2012·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

Although the measurement of physical activity with wearable monitors may be considered objective, consensus guidelines for collecting and processing these objective data are lacking. This article presents an algorithm embodying best practice recommendations for collecting, processing, and reporting physical activity data routinely collected with accelerometry-based activity monitors. This algorithm is proposed as a linear series of seven steps within three successive phases. The Precollection Phase includes two steps. Step 1 defines the population of interest, the type and intensity of physical activity behaviors to be targeted, and the preferred outcome variables, and identifies the epoch duration. In Step 2, the activity monitor is selected, and decisions about how long and where on the body the monitor is to be worn are made. The Data Collection Phase, Step 3, consists of collecting and processing activity monitor data and is dependent on decisions made previously. The Postcollection Phase consists of four steps. Step 4 involves quality and quantity control checks of the activity monitor data. In Step 5, the raw data are transformed into physiologically meaningful units using a calibration algorithm. Step 6 involves summarizing these data according to the target behavior. In Step 7, physical activity outcome variables based on time, energy expenditure, or movement type are generated. Best practice recommendations include the full disclosure of each step within the algorithm when reporting monitor-derived physical activity outcome variables in the research literature. As such, those reading and publishing within the research literature, as well as future users, will have the best chance for understanding the interactions between study methodology and activity monitor selection, as well as the best possibility for relating their own monitor-derived physical activity outcome variables to the research literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0b013e3182399dcc

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HEIL, D. P., BRAGE, S., & ROTHNEY, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Montana State University (US)
  • GE Global Research (United States) (US)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2012-01
Volume
44
Issue
1S
Pages
S50-S60
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2326204356
Cited by
121
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
physical activity measurement, accelerometry, wearable activity trackers, data processing algorithms, data quality control, calibration, energy expenditure estimation, reporting guidelines, monitor placement
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Calibration, Data Collection, Humans, Motor Activity, Quality Control, Guidelines as Topic, Monitoring, Ambulatory

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