Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimation of Daily Energy Expenditure in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women Using a Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometer

Open access
van Hees, Vincent T., Renström, Frida, Wright, Antony, Gradmark, Anna, Catt, Michael, Chen, Kong Y., Löf, Marie, Bluck, Les, Pomeroy, Jeremy, Wareham, Nicholas J., Ekelund, Ulf, Brage, Søren, Franks, Paul W.·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the validity of objective measures of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in pregnant and non-pregnant women. PAEE is commonly estimated with accelerometers attached to the hip or waist, but little is known about the validity and participant acceptability of wrist attachment. The objectives of the current study were to assess the validity of a simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEA, Unilever Discover, UK) to estimate PAEE in pregnant and non-pregnant women, and to evaluate participant acceptability. METHODS: Non-pregnant (N = 73) and pregnant (N = 35) Swedish women (aged 20-35 yrs) wore the accelerometer on their wrist for 10 days during which total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed using doubly-labelled water. PAEE was calculated as 0.9×TEE-REE. British participants (N = 99; aged 22-65 yrs) wore accelerometers on their non-dominant wrist and hip for seven days and were asked to score the acceptability of monitor placement (scored 1 [least] through 10 [most] acceptable). RESULTS: There was no significant correlation between body weight and PAEE. In non-pregnant women, acceleration explained 24% of the variation in PAEE, which decreased to 19% in leave-one-out cross-validation. In pregnant women, acceleration explained 11% of the variation in PAEE, which was not significant in leave-one-out cross-validation. Median (IQR) acceptability of wrist and hip placement was 9(8-10) and 9(7-10), respectively; there was a within-individual difference of 0.47 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: A simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer adds significantly to the prediction of energy expenditure in non-pregnant women and is scored acceptable by participants.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0022922

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
van Hees, V. T., Renström, F., Wright, A., Gradmark, A., Catt, M., Chen, K. Y., Löf, M., Bluck, L., Pomeroy, J., Wareham, N. J., Ekelund, U., Brage, S., & Franks, P. W.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-07-29
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
e22922
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109270820
Cited by
289
References
6
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimation of Daily Energy Expenditure in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women Using a Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0022922
The paper
van Hees, V. T., Renström, F., Wright, A., Gradmark, A., Catt, M., Chen, K. Y., Löf, M., Bluck, L., Pomeroy, J., Wareham, N. J., Ekelund, U., Brage, S., & Franks, P. W. (2011). Estimation of Daily Energy Expenditure in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women Using a Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometer. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022922

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.