Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40838174›Full record

ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2025

Performance evaluation of algorithms to estimate daily sedentary time using wrist-worn sensors in free-living adults.

Charles E Matthews, Pedro Saint-Maurice, Joshua R Freeman, Hayden A Hayes, Alaina H Shreves, Aiden Doherty, Eric T Hyde, Katie Ylarregui, Rena R Jones, Sarah K Keadle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Intensity-specific physical activity and mortality in 147,414 adults: a pooled accelerometer analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Charles E MatthewsMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Pedro Saint-MauriceBreast Cancer Research Unit, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joshua R FreemanMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Hayden A HayesMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Alaina H ShrevesMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Aiden DohertyNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Eric T HydeMetabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Katie YlarreguiDepartment of Kinesiology and Public Health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.
Rena R JonesOccupational & Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sarah K KeadleDepartment of Kinesiology and Public Health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Given the limited real-world testing of algorithms for wrist-worn sensors to estimate sedentary time, we examined the performance of 21 algorithms in free-living adults. Methods: Seventy-one adults (35-65 years) wore a GENEActiv (wrist) and an activPAL (thigh) sensor for up to 10 days. activPAL was our reference measure. We estimated sedentary time (hours/day) using 21 classification algorithms, including cut point and machine-learning methods. Valid days from each monitor were matched by date and mean values were calculated. Equivalence testing (±10%) and linear regression were used to compare each algorithm's estimate to the reference, over all participants and by sex and age. Results: activPAL recorded a mean of 9.4 hours/d sedentary. Five of 21 algorithms (24%) estimated sedentary time within 10% (±0.94 hours) of the reference. Two of these methods employed machine-learning algorithms (Trost Extended, OxWearables) and three employed cut points (GGIR ENMO 40mg; Bakrania ENMO 32.6mg; Fraysse ENMOa 62.5mg). Variance explained in linear regression was relatively high for the machine-learning (R Conclusion: Fifteen of 21 (71%) algorithms produced estimates of sedentary time that were moderate-strongly correlated with the reference measure, but only five (24%) were within 10% of the reference. Free-living benchmarking studies like this can identify more accurate and precise algorithms to estimate sedentary time and identify characteristics of algorithm development studies that yield better results.

Indexed as

epidemiologyphysical activitypublic healthsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID40838174
PMCPMC12363551

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.