Validation of an open-source smartphone step counting algorithm in clinical and non-clinical settings
Straczkiewicz, M.; Keating, N. L.; Thompson, E.; Matulonis, U. A.; Campos, S. M.; Wright, A. A.; Onnela, J.-P.
Show abstract
BackgroundStep counts are increasingly used in public health and clinical research to assess wellbeing, lifestyle, and health status. However, estimating step counts using commercial activity trackers has several limitations, including a lack of reproducibility, generalizability, and scalability. Smartphones are a potentially promising alternative, but their step-counting algorithms require robust validation that accounts for temporal sensor body location, individual gait characteristics, and heterogeneous health states. ObjectiveOur goal was to evaluate an open-source step-counting method for smartphones under various measurement conditions against step counts estimated from data collected simultaneously from different body locations ("internal" validation), manually ascertained ground truth ("manual" validation), and step counts from a commercial activity tracker (Fitbit Charge 2) in patients with advanced cancer ("wearable" validation). MethodsWe used eight independent datasets collected in controlled, semi-controlled, and free-living environments with different devices (primarily Android smartphones and wearable accelerometers) carried at typical body locations. Five datasets (N=103) were used for internal validation, two datasets (N=107) for manual validation, and one dataset (N=45) used for wearable validation. In each scenario, step counts were estimated using a previously published step-counting method for smartphones that uses raw sub-second level accelerometer data. We calculated mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between step count estimates and validation criteria using Bland-Altman analysis. ResultsIn the internal validation datasets, participants performed 751.7{+/-}581.2 (mean{+/-}SD) steps, and the mean bias was -7.2 steps (LoA -47.6, 33.3) or -0.5%. In the manual validation datasets, the ground truth step count was 367.4{+/-}359.4 steps while the mean bias was -0.4 steps (LoA -75.2, 74.3) or 0.1 %. In the wearable validation dataset, Fitbit devices indicated mean step counts of 1931.2{+/-}2338.4, while the calculated bias was equal to -67.1 steps (LoA -603.8, 469.7) or a difference of 0.3 %. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that our open-source step counting method for smartphone data provides reliable step counts across sensor locations, measurement scenarios, and populations, including healthy adults and patients with cancer.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table 95%
- Validity and reliability of an app-based medical device to empower individuals in evaluating their physical capacities 95%
- Behaviour-based movement cut-off points in 3-year old children comparing wrist- with hip-worn actigraphs MW8 and GT3X 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Population Analysis Of Mortality Risk: Predictive Models Using Motion Sensors For 100,000 Participants In The UK Biobank National Cohort 95%
- Feasibility characteristics of wrist-worn fitness trackers in health status monitoring for post-COVID patients in remote and rural areas 94%
- Longitudinally Tracking Personal Physiomes for Precision Management of Childhood Epilepsy 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ambulatory physiological measures obtained under naturalistic urban mobility conditions have acceptable reliability 94%
- The Ramp protocol: Uncovering individual differences in walking to an auditory beat using TeensyStep 94%
- Sociodemographic Characteristics of Missing Data in Digital Phenotyping 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- High-Resolution Digital Phenotypes from Consumer Wearables Enhance Prediction of Cardiometabolic Risk Markers 93%
- Quantified Flu: an individual-centered approach to gaining sickness-related insights from wearable data 90%
- Predicting public take-up of digital contact tracing during the COVID-19 crisis: Results of a national survey 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.