IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0210006.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential corner case cautions regarding publicly available implementations of the National Cancer Institute’s nonwear/wear classification algorithm for accelerometer data

Author

Listed:
  • Hyatt E Moore IV
  • K Farish Haydel
  • Jorge A Banda
  • Madalina Fiterau
  • Manisha Desai
  • Thomas N Robinson

Abstract

The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) wear time classification algorithm uses a rule based on the occurrence of physical activity data counts—a cumulative measure of movement, influenced by both magnitude and duration of acceleration—to differentiate between when a physical activity monitoring (PAM) device (ActiGraph accelerometer) is being worn by a participant (wear) from when it is not (nonwear). It was applied to PAM data generated from the 2003–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003–2004). We discuss two corner case conditions that can produce unexpected, and perhaps unintended results when the algorithm is applied. We show, using simulated data of two special cases, how this algorithm classifies a 24-hour period with only 72 total counts as 100% wear in one case, and classifies a 24-hour period with 96,000 counts as 0.1% wear in another. The prevalence of like scenarios in the NHANES 2003–2004 PAM dataset is presented with corresponding summary statistics for varying degrees of the algorithm’s nonwear classification threshold (T). The number of participants with valid days, defined as 10 or more hours classified as wear time in a 24-hour day, increased while the mean counts-per-minute (CPM) decreased as the threshold for excluding non-wear was reduced from the allowed 4,000 counts in an hour. The number of participants with four or more valid days increased 2.29% (n = 113) and mean CPM dropped 2.45% (9.5 CPM) when adjusting the nonwear classification threshold to 50 counts an hour. Applying the most liberal criteria, only excluding hours as nonwear which contained 1 count or less, resulted in a 397 more participants (7.83% increase) and 26.5 fewer CPM (6.98% decrease) in NHANES 2003–2004 participants with four or more valid days. The algorithm should be used with caution due to the potential influence of these corner cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyatt E Moore IV & K Farish Haydel & Jorge A Banda & Madalina Fiterau & Manisha Desai & Thomas N Robinson, 2018. "Potential corner case cautions regarding publicly available implementations of the National Cancer Institute’s nonwear/wear classification algorithm for accelerometer data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210006
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210006
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210006&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0210006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0210006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.