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

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

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 2023-09, Vol.20 (1), p.115-115, Article 115
Hauptverfasser: Hibbing, Paul R., Welk, Gregory J., Ries, Daniel, Yeh, Hung-Wen, Shook, Robin P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Intake-balance assessments measure energy intake (EI) by summing energy expenditure (EE) with concurrent change in energy storage ([DELA]ES). 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. 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 [DELA]ES 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. 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. 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).
ISSN:1479-5868
1479-5868
DOI:10.1186/s12966-023-01515-0