{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030828516377649325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017341040462427744, 'mean_word_length': 5.470404984423676, '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}}
Measuring Activity Patterns Using Actigraphy in Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating disease resulting in impairments in motor and mental performance and restrictions in activities. Self‐report instruments are commonly used to measure activity patterns; alternatively, actigraphs can be placed on several parts of the body. The aims of this study were to evaluate the superiority and specificity of actigraph placement (wrist vs. ankle) in subjects with MS and healthy controls and explore the relationship between self‐report and objective activity patterns. A total of 19 subjects with definite MS and 10 healthy volunteers wore actigraphs on the non‐dominant wrist and ankle for three days while they kept a log to register performed activities every. 5 h. Wrist and ankle actigraphs produced similar activity patterns during the most active hours (09∶00–20∶30 h) (ANOVA, time×location interaction: F=.901, df=23, p=.597) in individuals with MS and healthy controls (between subjects factor F=3.275, p=.083). Wrist placement of the actigraphs was better tolerated than ankle placement. Wrist actigraph data corresponded to a higher degree with self‐reported activities of the upper limbs in the early afternoon, whereas ankle data seem to reflect better whole body movements in the later afternoon/early evening. Overall, actigraph data correlated moderately with self‐reported activity (r=.57 for ankle and r=.59 for wrist). The regression model revealed that self‐reported activities explained 44% of the variance in ankle and 50% of wrist data. Wrist and ankle actigraphs produce similar activity patterns in subjects with MS and in healthy controls; however, the placement of actigraphs on the wrist is better tolerated. Ankle actigraphs reflect general movement but underestimate upper body activity. Subjective registration of activity level partly matches with objective actigraph measurement. A combination of both objective and subjective activity registration is recommended to evaluate the physical activity pattern of subjects with MS.