RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation of an open-source smartphone step counting algorithm in clinical and non-clinical settings
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.03.28.23287844
DO 10.1101/2023.03.28.23287844
A1 Straczkiewicz, Marcin
A1 Keating, Nancy L.
A1 Thompson, Embree
A1 Matulonis, Ursula A.
A1 Campos, Susana M.
A1 Wright, Alexi A.
A1 Onnela, Jukka-Pekka
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/28/2023.03.28.23287844.abstract
AB Background Step 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.Objective Our 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).Methods We 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.Results In 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 %.Conclusions This 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementDrs Straczkiewicz and Onnela are supported by NHLBI award U01HL145386 and NIMH award R37MH119194. Drs Wright and Onnela are also supported by NINR award R21NR018532. Dr. Matulonis is supported by the Dana-Farber Harvard Cancer Center Ovarian Cancer SPORE grant (P50CA240243) and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.BMIBody mass indexDaLiAcDaily life activities datasetHOPEHelping our patients excel datasetLoALimits of agreementPARUSSPhysical activity recognition using smartphone sensors datasetPedEvalPedometer evaluation project datasetRealWorldReal-world datasetSFDLASimulated falls and daily living activities datasetSPADESHuman physical activity datasetWalkRecWalking recognition dataset