Machine Learning to Quantify Physical Activity in Children with Cerebral Palsy: Comparison of Group, Group-Personalized, and Fully-Personalized Activity Classification Models
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 imp...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2020-07, Vol.20 (14), p.3976, Article 3976 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1424-8220 1424-8220 |
DOI: | 10.3390/s20143976 |