ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Are Machine Learning Models on Wrist Accelerometry Robust against Differences in Physical Performance among Older Adults?
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine and Deep Learning for Detection of Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity From Accelerometer Data: Systematic Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- A Feasibility Study of Domain Adaptation for Exercise Intensity Recognition Based on Wearable Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- From Verbal Reports to Personalized Activity Trackers: Understanding the Challenges of Ground Truth Data Collection with Older Adults in the Wild.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2025Article
- Advancing Digital Medicine with Wearables in the Wild.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sufficient physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of a myriad of diseases and preserves physical capabilities in later life. While there have been significant achievements in mapping accelerations to real-life movements using machine learning (ML), errors continue to be common, particularly for wrist-worn devices. It remains unknown whether ML models are robust for estimating age-related loss of physical function. In this study, we evaluated the performance of ML models (XGBoost and LASSO) to estimate the hallmark measures of PA in low physical performance (LPP) and high physical performance (HPP) groups. Our models were built to recognize PA types and intensities, identify each individual activity, and estimate energy expenditure (EE) using wrist-worn accelerometer data (33 activities per participant) from a large sample of participants (n = 247, 57% females, aged 60+ years). Results indicated that the ML models were accurate in recognizing PA by type and intensity while also estimating EE accurately. However, the models built to recognize individual activities were less robust. Across all tasks, XGBoost outperformed LASSO. XGBoost obtained F1-Scores for sedentary (0.932 ± 0.005), locomotion (0.946 ± 0.003), lifestyle (0.927 ± 0.006), and strength flexibility exercise (0.915 ± 0.017) activity type recognition tasks. The F1-Scores for recognizing low, light, and moderate activity intensity were (0.932 ± 0.005), (0.840 ± 0.004), and (0.869 ± 0.005), respectively. The root mean square error for EE estimation was 0.836 ± 0.059 METs. There was no evidence showing that splitting the participants into the LPP and HPP groups improved the models’ performance on estimating the hallmark measures of physical activities. In conclusion, using features derived from wrist-worn accelerometer data, machine learning models can accurately recognize PA types and intensities and estimate EE for older adults with high and low physical function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.