{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05752212389380531, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022123893805309734, 'mean_word_length': 4.477508650519031, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Use of Consumer Monitors for Estimating Energy Expenditure in Youth.

The purpose of this study was to compare EE estimates from five consumer physical activity monitors (PAMs) to indirect calorimetry in a sample of youth. Eighty-nine youth (mean(SD); age, 12.3(3.4) yrs; 50% female) performed 16 semi-structured activities. Activities were performed in duplicate across two visits. Participants wore a Cosmed K4b2 (criterion for EE), an Apple Watch 2 (AW, left wrist), Mymo Tracker (MT, right hip), and Misfit Shine 2 devices (MSH, right hip; MSS, right shoe). Participants were randomized to wear a Samsung Gear Fit 2 (SG) or a Fitbit Charge 2 (FC) on the right wrist. Oxygen consumption was converted to EE by subtracting estimated basal EE (Schofield's equation) from the measured gross EE. EE from each visit was summed across the two visit days for comparison to the total EE recorded from the PAMs. All consumer PAMs estimated gross EE, except for AW (net Active EE). Paired t-tests were used to assess differences between estimated (PAM) and measured (K4b2) EE. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was used to assess individual-level error. The MT was not significantly different from measured EE and was within 15.9 kcals of measured kcals (p = 0.764). Mean percent errors ranged from 3.5% (MT) to 48.2% (AW). MAPE ranged from 16.8% (MSH) to 49.9% (Mymo). • Only the MT was not significantly different from measured EE but had the greatest individual error. • The MSH had the lowest individual error. • Caution is warranted when using consumer PAMs in youth for tracking EE.