To examine the comparability of the ActiGraph 7164 and wGT3X-BT wear time, count-based estimates, and average time/day in physical activity of different intensities.
We studied 87 Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) participants, aged 48-60 years, who simultaneously wore the 7164 and wGT3X-BT accelerometers at the waist in 2015-16, with wear time ≥4 of 7 days, ≥10 hours/day for both monitors. Freedson cutpoints (counts/min) were used to define sedentary (<100), light (100-1951), moderate (1952-5724), and vigorous activity (≥5725). Agreement was evaluated using paired difference tests, intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Given systematic differences in count-based estimates between monitors, a calibration formula applied to the wGT3X-BT values was obtained by linear regression.
Total detected wear time min/day was nearly identical between the 7164 and wGT3X-BT (881.5±70.9 vs. 880.3±78.1, p=0.72). The wGT3X-BT values were calibrated to the 7164 values by dividing counts by 1.088. After calibration, no differences were observed between the 7164 and wGT3X-BT in total counts/day (310,184±129,189 vs. 307,085±135,362, p=0.48), average counts/min/day (349.5±139.5 vs. 346.5±147.2, p = 0.54), sedentary (513.2±93.6 vs. 509.6±98.6, p=0.23), light (335.3±81.5 vs. 338.7±81.1, p=0.22), moderate (31.0±21.9 vs. 30.3±23.4, p=0.31), or moderate to vigorous min/day (33.1±24.6 vs. 32.0±26.0, p=0.13). A significant difference was observed for vigorous min/day (0.2±1.0 vs. 0.0±0.3, p<0.01); however, the absolute difference was marginal. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed excellent agreement for all measures (ICC=0.95-0.99).
After applying a calibration formula, the 7164 and wGT3X-BT were comparable for total wear time, count-based estimates, and average min/day in sedentary, light, moderate, and moderate to vigorous activity. Findings illustrate a novel methodological approach to facilitate accelerometer data harmonization.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,099,140
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#3,310
of 8,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,872
of 373,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#55
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 373,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
