ABSTRACT

The aim was to establish which postural and physical activity outcomes are comparable across different accelerometer brands worn on the thigh when processed using open-source methods. Twenty participants wore four accelerometers (Axivity, ActiGraph, activPAL, GENEActiv) for three free-living days. Postural and physical activity outputs (average acceleration, intensity gradient, intensity of the most active 30 min, 60 min, and 8 h) were generated. Postural outputs: Mean absolute percent errors (MAPEs) were low, reliability excellent, and equivalency within the 5% zone across all monitor pairings for sitting/lying and upright times, but not specific lying postures. Physical activity outputs: MAPEs were higher and reliability lower than for sitting/lying and upright time. However, the majority of the outcomes were within the 10% equivalency zone for Axivity/GENEActiv and Axivity/ActiGraph pairings. Total sitting/lying and upright times show strong potential for harmonization across studies utilizing different thigh-worn accelerometers. The majority of acceleration outcomes compare well for Axivity, GENEActiv, and ActiGraph.

摘要

目的是确定在使用开源方法处理时，在大腿上佩戴的不同加速度计品牌中，哪些姿势和身体活动结果具有可比性。20 名参与者在三天自由生活中佩戴了四个加速度计（Axivity、ActiGraph、activPAL、GENEActiv）。生成姿势和身体活动输出（平均加速度、强度梯度、最活跃的 30 分钟、60 分钟和 8 小时的强度）。姿势输出：平均绝对百分比误差 (MAPE) 低、可靠性极好，并且在所有显示器配对的坐/躺和直立时间的 5% 区域内等效，但不是特定的躺姿。身体活动输出：MAPE 比坐/卧和直立时间更高，可靠性更低。然而，大多数结果都在 Axivity/GENEActiv 和 Axivity/ActiGraph 配对的 10% 等效区域内。总坐/躺和直立时间显示出在使用不同大腿佩戴加速度计的研究之间协调的巨大潜力。大多数加速结果与 Axivity、GENEActiv 和 ActiGraph 相比都很好。