Using Average And Variability Metrics Of Accelerometer-measured Daily Movement Behaviors For Frailty Detection

Frailty is associated with major adverse health outcomes in older adults. While movement behaviors (MBs) showed promise for frailty detection, few studies examined the combined role of average and variability metrics of daily MBs. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare frailty detection models using only average metrics versus using both average and variability metrics of daily MBs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 44 older adults (79.6 ± 9.3 years; 37 females) residing in senior communities. Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) was defined as meeting 3 or more of unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, and weakness. Participants wore an ActivPAL on the thigh for 10 consecutive days. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were computed for daily: 1) overall activity (activity score, daily steps, and number of sit to stand), 2) time in postures (standing, stepping, sitting, and lying), 3) time in sitting bouts >30 min, 4) steps in >1 min bouts, 5) time in cadence >75 steps/min. Random forest models were trained using age, sex, BMI, and either mean daily MBs (model 1) or both mean and SD of daily MBs (model 2) to classify FFP and its 5 components. RESULTS: Eleven (25%) participants were classified as frail. The average wear time was 9.1 ± 1.5 days. Model 1 achieved an AUC (95% CI) of 0.89 (0.77-1.00) for identifying FFP, while model 2 showed a similar AUC of 0.88 (0.75-1.00). Both models achieved comparable AUCs for identifying individual FFP components, with AUCs ranging from 0.81 to 0.94 for model 1 and 0.83 to 0.94 for model 2. However, the importance ranking indicated that variability metrics were ranked higher than average metrics in identifying unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, slowness, and weakness (Table). CONCLUSIONS: Although adding variability metrics of daily MBs did not improve the overall model performance in frailty detection, these metrics may capture unique aspects of frailty phenotypes not reflected by average daily MBs alone.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001160740.61317.93
Primary Topic
Frailty in Older Adults
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Using Average And Variability Metrics Of Accelerometer-measured Daily Movement Behaviors For Frailty Detection

Amanda E. Paluch, Dae Hyun Kim, Lingsong Kong, Yuchen Liu et al.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Frailty in Older Adults
article

Using Average And Variability Metrics Of Accelerometer-measured Daily Movement Behaviors For Frailty Detection

Amanda E. Paluch, Dae Hyun Kim, Lingsong Kong, Yuchen Liu, Kuan-Yuan Wang, Kailin Xu, Joel Miscione, Jillian Qua, Eric Regina
article en

Abstract

Frailty is associated with major adverse health outcomes in older adults. While movement behaviors (MBs) showed promise for frailty detection, few studies examined the combined role of average and variability metrics of daily MBs. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare frailty detection models using only average metrics versus using both average and variability metrics of daily MBs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 44 older adults (79.6 ± 9.3 years; 37 females) residing in senior communities. Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) was defined as meeting 3 or more of unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, low physical activity, slowness, and weakness. Participants wore an ActivPAL on the thigh for 10 consecutive days. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were computed for daily: 1) overall activity (activity score, daily steps, and number of sit to stand), 2) time in postures (standing, stepping, sitting, and lying), 3) time in sitting bouts >30 min, 4) steps in >1 min bouts, 5) time in cadence >75 steps/min. Random forest models were trained using age, sex, BMI, and either mean daily MBs (model 1) or both mean and SD of daily MBs (model 2) to classify FFP and its 5 components. RESULTS: Eleven (25%) participants were classified as frail. The average wear time was 9.1 ± 1.5 days. Model 1 achieved an AUC (95% CI) of 0.89 (0.77-1.00) for identifying FFP, while model 2 showed a similar AUC of 0.88 (0.75-1.00). Both models achieved comparable AUCs for identifying individual FFP components, with AUCs ranging from 0.81 to 0.94 for model 1 and 0.83 to 0.94 for model 2. However, the importance ranking indicated that variability metrics were ranked higher than average metrics in identifying unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, slowness, and weakness (Table). CONCLUSIONS: Although adding variability metrics of daily MBs did not improve the overall model performance in frailty detection, these metrics may capture unique aspects of frailty phenotypes not reflected by average daily MBs alone.

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 57(10S)
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Frailty in Older Adults
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.