Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Academic Department of Military Rehabilitation, Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) Headley Court, Surrey, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 31;14(1):e0209249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209249. eCollection 2019.
To assess the validity of a derived algorithm, combining tri-axial accelerometry and heart rate (HR) data, compared to a research-grade multi-sensor physical activity device, for the estimation of ambulatory physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in individuals with traumatic lower-limb amputation.
Twenty-eight participants [unilateral (n = 9), bilateral (n = 10) with lower-limb amputations, and non-injured controls (n = 9)] completed eight activities; rest, ambulating at 5 progressive treadmill velocities (0.48, 0.67, 0.89, 1.12, 1.34m.s-1) and 2 gradients (3 and 5%) at 0.89m.s-1. During each task, expired gases were collected for the determination of [Formula: see text] and subsequent calculation of PAEE. An Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer was worn on the hip of the shortest residual limb and, a HR monitor and an Actiheart (AHR) device were worn on the chest. Multiple linear regressions were employed to derive population-specific PAEE estimated algorithms using Actigraph GT3X+ outputs and HR signals (GT3X+HR). Mean bias±95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) and error statistics were calculated between criterion PAEE (indirect calorimetry) and PAEE predicted using GT3X+HR and AHR.
Both measurement approaches used to predict PAEE were significantly related (P<0.01) with criterion PAEE. GT3X+HR revealed the strongest association, smallest LoA and least error. Predicted PAEE (GT3X+HR; unilateral; r = 0.92, bilateral; r = 0.93, and control; r = 0.91, and AHR; unilateral; r = 0.86, bilateral; r = 0.81, and control; r = 0.67). Mean±SD percent error across all activities were 18±14%, 15±12% and 15±14% for the GT3X+HR and 45±20%, 39±23% and 34±28% in the AHR model, for unilateral, bilateral and control groups, respectively.
Statistically derived algorithms (GT3X+HR) provide a more valid estimate of PAEE in individuals with traumatic lower-limb amputation, compared to a proprietary group calibration algorithm (AHR). Outputs from AHR displayed considerable random error when tested in a laboratory setting in individuals with lower-limb amputation.
评估一种衍生算法的有效性,该算法结合三轴加速度计和心率 (HR) 数据,用于估计创伤性下肢截肢患者的日常体力活动能量消耗 (PAEE),与研究级多传感器身体活动设备进行比较。
28 名参与者[单侧 (n = 9)、双侧 (n = 10)下肢截肢者和未受伤对照组 (n = 9)]完成了八项活动;休息、以 0.48、0.67、0.89、1.12 和 1.34m.s-1 的 5 个渐进式跑步机速度以及在 0.89m.s-1 时以 3 和 5%的梯度进行行走。在每项任务中,收集呼出的气体以确定 [Formula: see text],并随后计算 PAEE。将 Actigraph GT3X+加速度计佩戴在最短残肢的臀部,将心率监测器和 Actiheart (AHR) 设备佩戴在胸部。使用多线性回归使用 Actigraph GT3X+输出和 HR 信号 (GT3X+HR) 为每个群体推导特定的 PAEE 估算算法。使用 GT3X+HR 和 AHR 预测的 PAEE 与间接测热法的标准 PAEE 之间计算均值偏差±95%一致性界限 (LoA) 和误差统计数据。
用于预测 PAEE 的两种测量方法均与标准 PAEE 显著相关 (P<0.01)。GT3X+HR 显示出最强的关联,最小的 LoA 和最小的误差。预测的 PAEE (GT3X+HR;单侧;r = 0.92,双侧;r = 0.93,和对照组;r = 0.91,和 AHR;单侧;r = 0.86,双侧;r = 0.81,和对照组;r = 0.67)。所有活动的平均±SD 百分比误差分别为 GT3X+HR 模型中的 18±14%、15±12%和 15±14%,以及 AHR 模型中的 45±20%、39±23%和 34±28%,分别用于单侧、双侧和对照组。
与专有的组校准算法 (AHR) 相比,统计推导的算法 (GT3X+HR) 为创伤性下肢截肢患者提供了更准确的 PAEE 估计值。在实验室环境中对下肢截肢者进行测试时,AHR 的输出显示出相当大的随机误差。