Abstract
This cross-sectional study aimed to identify and validate cut-points for measuring physical activity using Axivity AX6 accelerometers positioned at the shank in older adults. Free-living physical activity was assessed in 35 adults aged 55 and older, where each participant wore a shank mounted Axivity and a waist mounted ActiGraph simultaneously for 72 hours. Optimized cut-points for each participant’s Axivity data were determined using an optimization algorithm to align with ActiGraph results. To assess validity between the physical activity assessments from the optimized Axivity cut-points, a leave-one-out cross validation was conducted. Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and mean differences were used for comparing the systems. The results indicated good agreement between the two accelerometers when classifying sedentary behaviour (ICC = 0.85) and light physical activity (ICC = 0.80), and moderate agreement when classifying moderate physical activity (ICC = 0.67) and vigorous physical activity (ICC = 0.70). Upon removal of a significant outlier, the agreement was slightly improved for sedentary behaviour (ICC = 0.86) and light physical activity (ICC = 0.82), but substantially improved for moderate physical activity (ICC = 0.81) and vigorous physical activity (ICC = 0.96). Overall, the study successfully demonstrated the capability of the resultant cut-point model to accurately classify physical activity using Axivity AX6 sensors placed at the shank.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant Number - RGPIN-2020-06338 www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca DK) and the Smart Mobility for the Aging Population Collaborative Research and Training Experience program (https://smap.mcmaster.ca/ FG). The funders had no role in the design of the study, the data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the McMaster Research Ethics Board, Hamilton, ON.
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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
