Evidence mapPaperPMID 42393677Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2026

Development and evaluation of wrist- and thigh-worn accelerometer algorithms using self-training machine learning models for classification of activity type and posture: towards device placement-agnostic methods in the ProPASS consortium.

Matthew N Ahmadi, Nicholas Koemel, Raaj Biswas, Andreas Holtermann, Annemarie Koster, Andrew Atkins, Richard Pulsford, Borja Del Pozo Cruz, Vegar Rangul, John Mitchell and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Matthew N AhmadiTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Nicholas KoemelTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Raaj BiswasMackenzie Wearables Research Hub, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Andreas HoltermannNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annemarie KosterDepartment of Social Medicine, Maastricht University CAPRHI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Andrew AtkinsSchool of Health Sciences and Norwich Epidemiology Centre, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Richard PulsfordFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Borja Del Pozo CruzDepartment of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health, and Sports, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain.
Vegar RangulDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, HUNT Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
John MitchellDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, Institute of Sport Exercise and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Joanna BlodgettDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, Institute of Sport Exercise and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Pasan HettiarachchiDepartment of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Magnus SvartengrenDepartment of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Malcolm GranatSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, M6 6PU, UK.
Bronwyn ClarkSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Mark HamerDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, Institute of Sport Exercise and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Emmanuel StamatakisTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. emmanuel.stamatakis@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

National Heart Foundation of Australia APP 107158
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWearable accelerometers are widely used in health research, but differing placements (e.g. wrist vs. thigh) hinder harmonising activity classification across studies. Prior studies report 1.5- to 2.0-fold differences in physical activity level by wear location, hampering data comparability, and compromising the potential for pooling data to develop consortia and carrying out Meta- and Individual Participant Data analysis. Although supervised machine learning is increasingly used in wearables research, its reliance on extensive labelled data limits its use in free-living datasets. Semi-supervised learning offers an efficient alternative by using laboratory collected labelled data to iteratively self-train models on unlabelled free-living data. Using a self-training approach, the aim of this study was to train and evaluate algorithms for wrist- and thigh-worn devices to facilitate harmonisation of posture and activity type classification between placements.

methodsA total of 146 participants aged 30-75 years completed either structured laboratory-based activity trials or one of two independent free-living assessments while wearing Axivity AX3 accelerometers on the wrist and thigh. For each placement, a supervised Random Forest classifier was initially trained using a labelled laboratory dataset (n = 40) to classify sitting, standing, walking, running, stair climbing, and cycling - and then re-trained using self-training on free-living data (n = 53, independent to the laboratory study sample). The final models were validated using another hold-out free-living independent dataset (n = 53) with ground-truth activity labels obtained via direct video observation. Overall model comparison and performance was assessed using accuracy, kappa statistic, and F1 scores. Individual activity class comparison and performance was evaluated using equivalence testing, confusion matrices, and coefficient of variation between the wrist and thigh estimates.

resultsDuring a total of 43,800 min, of which 19,080 min were in the hold-out dataset, both self-trained models achieved high overall classification accuracy: 91.8% (SD = 6.8%) for the wrist and 95.1% (SD = 5.4%) for the thigh. The overall F1 score was 88.2 (SD = 9.6%) for the wrist classifier and 90.1 (SD = 9.3%) for the thigh classifier. Equivalence testing demonstrated that both classifiers produced activity duration estimates statistically equivalent to ground-truth for all activity types except stair climbing. Confusion matrices for the wrist demonstrated very good to excellent (88% - 97%) classification accuracy for sitting, walking, running, and cycling, and good accuracy for standing and stair climbing (71%-78%). For the thigh, classification performance was very good to excellent (83% - 98%) across sitting, standing, walking, running, and cycling, with good accuracy for stair climbing (75%). The coefficient of variation values ranged from 0.022 for running to 0.140 for standing.

conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of self-training models to support harmonisation of wearable accelerometer data collected using different wear placements. Self-training models reduce reliance on extensive labelled data and demonstrated high activity type classification accuracy for both wrist- and thigh-worn accelerometers, with a high degree of agreement and equivalence with ground-truth data across almost all activity types.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAlgorithmsExerciseMachine LearningPostureWearable Electronic DevicesAdultAgedClassification AlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedThighWrist

Identifiers

PMID42393677
PMCPMC13326117

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.