PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Wei, Le
AU  - Ahmadi, Matthew N.
AU  - Blodgett, Joanna M.
AU  - Aguiar, Elroy J.
AU  - Biswas, Raaj Kishore
AU  - Bozo Cruz, Borja del
AU  - Stamatakis, Emmanuel
TI  - Does the choice of stepping intensity metric influence dose-response associations with mortality? A UK population cohort study of 70,174 adults
AID  - 10.1101/2024.09.10.24313453
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.09.10.24313453
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/12/2024.09.10.24313453.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/09/12/2024.09.10.24313453.full
AB  - Background Research on the health effects of stepping intensity in free-living environments is limited and inconclusive. Inconsistent use of stepping intensity estimation metrics could explain current equivocal results. We aimed to examine and compare a range of different cadence-based metrics in terms of their multivariable-adjusted associations with all-cause (ACM) cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and physical-activity (PA)-related cancer mortality.Methods This prospective cohort study included participants with valid wrist-worn accelerometer data from the UK Biobank. We estimated stepping intensity using ten different cadence-based metrics, including eight peak-cadence metrics (defined as averaged steps / min of the highest but not necessarily consecutive minutes) that most of whom have appeared in prior literature, plus two non-peak-cadence metrics: 1) average daily cadence, defined as steps/accelerometer wearing mins, and 2) average cadence of purposeful steps, defined as averaged steps / min of minutes with ≥40 steps. We rescaled each metric into a standardised cadence scale with mean of 0 and standard deviation (SD) of 1, using (absolute–mean)/SD. We compared the dose-response associations of each stepping intensity estimation metrics with mortality outcomes using previously published modelling involving Cox-restricted-cubic-spline model, presented as overlay plots on standardised and absolute cadence scales.Results Among 70,336 participants (age [SD], 61.6 [7.8] years; female, 40,933 [58%]) followed up for a median of 8.0 years, all cadence-based metrics, besides the average cadence of purposeful steps, exhibited a comparable beneficial dose-response association with ACM/CVD/cancer mortality, with 95% CI largely overlapped (e.g., at −0.2 standardised steps/min, the hazard ratio (HR) of ACM for peak 1- and peak 30-min cadence were: 0.72, 95%CI [0.65, 0.82] and 0.66 [0.60, 0.73], respectively). The average cadence of purposeful steps only did not show dose-response associations with mortality outcomes (e.g., the HR that corresponds to the standardised median for the average cadence of purposeful steps in ACM was 0.98 [95% CI: 0.86, 1.12].Conclusion Besides the average cadence of purposeful steps, all stepping intensity estimation metrics demonstrated comparable beneficial dose-response associations with mortality of all-cause, CVD and cancer, suggesting these cadence-based metrics may be used interchangeably for estimating associations of free-living stepping intensity with health outcomes and applied in different research scenarios accordingly.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through a Leadership level 2 Fellowship to Emmanuel Stamatakis (APP1194510).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:Ethics approval Our study utilized data from the UK Biobank, which has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service (Ref 11/NW/0382). 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.YesBona fide researchers can register and apply to use the UK Biobank dataset at http://ukbiobank.ac.uk/register-apply/