↓ Skip to main content

Identifying adults’ valid waking wear time by automated estimation in activPAL data collected with a 24 h wear protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Physiological Measurement, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
176 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying adults’ valid waking wear time by automated estimation in activPAL data collected with a 24 h wear protocol
Published in
Physiological Measurement, September 2016
DOI 10.1088/0967-3334/37/10/1653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth A H Winkler, Danielle H Bodicoat, Genevieve N Healy, Kishan Bakrania, Thomas Yates, Neville Owen, David W Dunstan, Charlotte L Edwardson

Abstract

The activPAL monitor, often worn 24 h d(-1), provides accurate classification of sitting/reclining posture. Without validated automated methods, diaries-burdensome to participants and researchers-are commonly used to ensure measures of sedentary behaviour exclude sleep and monitor non-wear. We developed, for use with 24 h wear protocols in adults, an automated approach to classify activity bouts recorded in activPAL 'Events' files as 'sleep'/non-wear (or not) and on a valid day (or not). The approach excludes long periods without posture change/movement, adjacent low-active periods, and days with minimal movement and wear based on a simple algorithm. The algorithm was developed in one population (STAND study; overweight/obese adults 18-40 years) then evaluated in AusDiab 2011/12 participants (n  =  741, 44% men, aged  >35 years, mean  ±  SD 58.5  ±  10.4 years) who wore the activPAL3(™) (7 d, 24 h d(-1) protocol). Algorithm agreement with a monitor-corrected diary method (usual practice) was tested in terms of the classification of each second as waking wear (Kappa; κ) and the average daily waking wear time, on valid days. The algorithm showed 'almost perfect' agreement (κ  >  0.8) for 88% of participants, with a median kappa of 0.94. Agreement varied significantly (p  <  0.05, two-tailed) by age (worsens with age) but not by gender. On average, estimated wear time was approximately 0.5 h d(-1) higher than by the diary method, with 95% limits of agreement of approximately this amount  ±2 h d(-1). In free-living data from Australian adults, a simple algorithm developed in a different population showed 'almost perfect' agreement with the diary method for most individuals (88%). For several purposes (e.g. with wear standardisation), adopting a low burden, automated approach would be expected to have little impact on data quality. The accuracy for total waking wear time was less and algorithm thresholds may require adjustments for older populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 25%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 21 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Psychology 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 46 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2021.
All research outputs
#12,677,444
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Physiological Measurement
#930
of 1,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,574
of 320,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiological Measurement
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.