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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Matthew N. Ahmadi, Margaret E. O’Neil, Emmah Baque, Roslyn N. Boyd, Stewart G. Trost
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020-07-01
Series:Sensors
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/14/3976
Description
Summary: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