Raw Accelerometer Data Analysis with GGIR R-package: Does Accelerometer Brand Matter?
Raw Accelerometer Data Analysis with GGIR R-package: Does Accelerometer Brand Matter?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0000000000000978
复制
发表时间：
2016-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Edwardson, Charlotte L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rowlands, Alex V.;Yates, Tom;Edwardson, Charlotte L.
本研究旨在确定在使用GGIR开源包处理时，腕带GENEActiv和ActiGraph加速度计同时测量的加速度输出之间的一致性。方法34例受试者在非优势腕关节连续佩戴GENEActiv和ActiGraph GT3X+ 2 d，确保捕获1个24小时的白天和1个夜间睡眠。使用R-package GGIR version 1.2-0对GENEActiv.bin文件和ActiGraph .csv文件进行分析。主要结果变量如下：佩戴时间、动态手腕加速度的平均幅度（欧几里得标准减1 [ENMO]）、加速度的百分比分布、在40毫克分辨率下跨越加速度水平所花费的时间、中高强度体力活动的时间（MVPA：总10分钟）和夜间睡眠时间。结果加速度计品牌之间的所有衍生结果（磨损时间、MVPA和睡眠；类内相关系数[ICC] > 0.96）、ENMO （ICC = 0.99）、跨加速水平花费的时间（ICC > 0.93）和加速度分布的第50百分位（ICC > 0.82）之间存在高度一致性。ENMO（平均SD， GENEActiv = 29.9 +/- 20.7 mg, ActiGraph = 27.8 +/- 21.4 mg）和genactiv测量的第5 - 75百分位之间的加速度显著高于ActiGraph测量的加速度。相应地，ActiGraph在0到40 mg之间记录的分钟数显著大于（745 min cf. 734 min）， GENEActiv在40到80 mg之间记录的分钟数显著大于（110 min cf. 105 min）。结论不同品牌患者的穿着时间、MVPA和睡眠时间相似。不同品牌在50-80毫克的加速度值上比较好，但在久坐时间下，加速度值就不低了。在比较不同品牌之间的ENMO程度时，建议谨慎，但不同品牌之间的个人活动和睡眠结果排名高度一致。
Purpose This study aimed to determine the agreement between outputs from contemporaneous measures of acceleration from wrist-worn GENEActiv and ActiGraph accelerometers when processed using the GGIR open source package.Methods Thirty-four participants wore a GENEActiv and an ActiGraph GT3X+ on their nondominant wrist continuously for 2 d to ensure the capture of one 24-h day and one nocturnal sleep. GENEActiv.bin files and ActiGraph .csv files were analyzed with R-package GGIR version 1.2-0. Key outcome variables were as follows: wear time, average magnitude of dynamic wrist acceleration (Euclidean norm minus one [ENMO]), percentile distribution of accelerations, time spent across acceleration levels in a 40-mg resolution, time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA: total, 10-min bouts), and duration of nocturnal sleep.Results There was a high agreement between accelerometer brands for all derived outcomes (wear time, MVPA, and sleep; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.96), ENMO (ICC = 0.99), time spent across acceleration levels (ICC > 0.93), and accelerations 50th percentile of the distribution (ICC > 0.82). ENMO (mean SD, GENEActiv = 29.9 +/- 20.7 mg, ActiGraph = 27.8 +/- 21.4 mg) and accelerations between the 5th and the 75th percentile of the distribution measured by the GENEActiv were significantly higher than those measured by the ActiGraph. Correspondingly, the number of minutes recorded between 0 and 40 mg was significantly greater for the ActiGraph (745 min cf. 734 min), and the number of minutes recorded between 40 and 80 mg was significantly greater for the GENEActiv (110 min cf. 105 min).Conclusion Derived outcomes (wear time, MVPA, and sleep) were similar between brands. Brands compared well for acceleration magnitudes >50-80 mg but not lower magnitudes indicative of sedentary time. Caution is advised when comparing the magnitude of ENMO between brands, but there was a high consistency between brands for the ranking of individuals for activity and sleep outcomes.