4.6 Article

Machine Learning to Quantify Physical Activity in Children with Cerebral Palsy: Comparison of Group, Group-Personalized, and Fully-Personalized Activity Classification Models

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 20, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20143976

Keywords

accelerometers; wearable sensors; exercise; measurement; GMFCS level

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R21 HD086745-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pattern recognition methodologies, such as those utilizing machine learning (ML) approaches, have the potential to improve the accuracy and versatility of accelerometer-based assessments of physical activity (PA). Children with cerebral palsy (CP) exhibit significant heterogeneity in relation to impairment and activity limitations; however, studies conducted to date have implemented one-size fits all group (G) models. Group-personalized (GP) models specific to the Gross Motor Function Classification (GMFCS) level and fully-personalized (FP) models trained on individual data may provide more accurate assessments of PA; however, these approaches have not been investigated in children with CP. In this study, 38 children classified at GMFCS I to III completed laboratory trials and a simulated free-living protocol while wearing an ActiGraph GT3X+ on the wrist, hip, and ankle. Activities were classified as sedentary, standing utilitarian movements, or walking. In the cross-validation, FP random forest classifiers (99.0-99.3%) exhibited a significantly higher accuracy than G (80.9-94.7%) and GP classifiers (78.7-94.1%), with the largest differential observed in children at GMFCS III. When evaluated under free-living conditions, all model types exhibited significant declines in accuracy, with FP models outperforming G and GP models in GMFCS levels I and II, but not III. Future studies should evaluate the comparative accuracy of personalized models trained on free-living accelerometer data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available