Cargando…

Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique

BACKGROUND: Intake-balance assessments measure energy intake (EI) by summing energy expenditure (EE) with concurrent change in energy storage (ΔES). Prior work has not examined the validity of such calculations when EE is estimated via open-source techniques for research-grade accelerometry devices....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hibbing, Paul R., Welk, Gregory J., Ries, Daniel, Yeh, Hung-Wen, Shook, Robin P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10521469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37749645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01515-0
_version_ 1785110133607497728
author Hibbing, Paul R.
Welk, Gregory J.
Ries, Daniel
Yeh, Hung-Wen
Shook, Robin P.
author_facet Hibbing, Paul R.
Welk, Gregory J.
Ries, Daniel
Yeh, Hung-Wen
Shook, Robin P.
author_sort Hibbing, Paul R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intake-balance assessments measure energy intake (EI) by summing energy expenditure (EE) with concurrent change in energy storage (ΔES). Prior work has not examined the validity of such calculations when EE is estimated via open-source techniques for research-grade accelerometry devices. The purpose of this study was to test the criterion validity of accelerometry-based intake-balance methods for a wrist-worn ActiGraph device. METHODS: Healthy adults (n = 24) completed two 14-day measurement periods while wearing an ActiGraph accelerometer on the non-dominant wrist. During each period, criterion values of EI were determined based on ΔES measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry and EE measured by doubly labeled water. A total of 11 prediction methods were tested, 8 derived from the accelerometer and 3 from non-accelerometry methods (e.g., diet recall; included for comparison). Group-level validity was assessed through mean bias, while individual-level validity was assessed through mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error, and Bland–Altman analysis. RESULTS: Mean bias for the three best accelerometry-based methods ranged from -167 to 124 kcal/day, versus -104 to 134 kcal/day for the non-accelerometry-based methods. The same three accelerometry-based methods had mean absolute error of 323–362 kcal/day and mean absolute percentage error of 18.1-19.3%, versus 353–464 kcal/day and 19.5-24.4% for the non-accelerometry-based methods. All 11 methods demonstrated systematic bias in the Bland–Altman analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometry-based intake-balance methods have promise for advancing EI assessment, but ongoing refinement is necessary. We provide an R package to facilitate implementation and refinement of accelerometry-based methods in future research (see paulhibbing.com/IntakeBalance). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-023-01515-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10521469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105214692023-09-27 Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique Hibbing, Paul R. Welk, Gregory J. Ries, Daniel Yeh, Hung-Wen Shook, Robin P. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Methodology BACKGROUND: Intake-balance assessments measure energy intake (EI) by summing energy expenditure (EE) with concurrent change in energy storage (ΔES). Prior work has not examined the validity of such calculations when EE is estimated via open-source techniques for research-grade accelerometry devices. The purpose of this study was to test the criterion validity of accelerometry-based intake-balance methods for a wrist-worn ActiGraph device. METHODS: Healthy adults (n = 24) completed two 14-day measurement periods while wearing an ActiGraph accelerometer on the non-dominant wrist. During each period, criterion values of EI were determined based on ΔES measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry and EE measured by doubly labeled water. A total of 11 prediction methods were tested, 8 derived from the accelerometer and 3 from non-accelerometry methods (e.g., diet recall; included for comparison). Group-level validity was assessed through mean bias, while individual-level validity was assessed through mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error, and Bland–Altman analysis. RESULTS: Mean bias for the three best accelerometry-based methods ranged from -167 to 124 kcal/day, versus -104 to 134 kcal/day for the non-accelerometry-based methods. The same three accelerometry-based methods had mean absolute error of 323–362 kcal/day and mean absolute percentage error of 18.1-19.3%, versus 353–464 kcal/day and 19.5-24.4% for the non-accelerometry-based methods. All 11 methods demonstrated systematic bias in the Bland–Altman analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometry-based intake-balance methods have promise for advancing EI assessment, but ongoing refinement is necessary. We provide an R package to facilitate implementation and refinement of accelerometry-based methods in future research (see paulhibbing.com/IntakeBalance). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-023-01515-0. BioMed Central 2023-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10521469/ /pubmed/37749645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01515-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Hibbing, Paul R.
Welk, Gregory J.
Ries, Daniel
Yeh, Hung-Wen
Shook, Robin P.
Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
title Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
title_full Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
title_fullStr Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
title_full_unstemmed Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
title_short Criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
title_sort criterion validity of wrist accelerometry for assessing energy intake via the intake-balance technique
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10521469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37749645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01515-0
work_keys_str_mv AT hibbingpaulr criterionvalidityofwristaccelerometryforassessingenergyintakeviatheintakebalancetechnique
AT welkgregoryj criterionvalidityofwristaccelerometryforassessingenergyintakeviatheintakebalancetechnique
AT riesdaniel criterionvalidityofwristaccelerometryforassessingenergyintakeviatheintakebalancetechnique
AT yehhungwen criterionvalidityofwristaccelerometryforassessingenergyintakeviatheintakebalancetechnique
AT shookrobinp criterionvalidityofwristaccelerometryforassessingenergyintakeviatheintakebalancetechnique