Key result
Five open-source step algorithms yield widely varying counts but share similar health associations after standardization.
Why the study?
While several open-source algorithms can estimate steps from high-resolution accelerometry data, there is a critical need to compare them and provide practical recommendations for their use in older adults.
Do different step-counting algorithms yield comparable step counts and associations with health outcomes in older adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,282)
Do different step-counting algorithms yield comparable step counts and associations with health outcomes in older adults?
p-value: p=<.001
While absolute step counts vary widely depending on the algorithm used, standardized step counts show consistent associations with health outcomes in older adults.
Absolute step counts vary widely by algorithm and should not guide care; standardization leaves consistent outcome associations open to prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Step counting from wrist accelerometry data is widely used in physical activity research and practice. While several open-source algorithms can estimate steps from high-resolution accelerometry data, there is a critical need to compare these algorithms and provide practical recommendations for their use in older adults. METHODS: A total of 1 282 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study participants (mean age 83.4, 60% female) wore ActiGraph GT9X wrist devices for 7 days, collecting 80-Hz triaxial accelerometry data. Five open-source step-counting algorithms (ADEPT, Oak, Step Detection Threshold [SDT], Verisense, and Stepcount) were applied to this data. Step count distributions and their cross-sectional associations with health outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The estimated mean daily step counts varied widely across algorithms, ranging from 988 for ADEPT to 23 607 for SDT. Pearson correlations across methods ranged from moderate (r = 0.52) to very strong (r = 0.96). All step counts were highly associated with age, with an estimated decline of 119.0 to 142.8 steps/year (all p < .001) with comparable trends observed across demographic subgroups. After z-score standardization (subtracting the population mean and dividing by the population standard deviation), the estimated steps from each algorithm exhibited similar directionality and magnitude of association with various metabolic, cardiovascular, physical performance, and cognitive outcomes (all p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated step counts algorithms are highly correlated, and, after z-scoring, have similar and highly significant associations with health outcomes. Because the total number of steps varies widely across algorithms, interpretation and translation of results for health monitoring and clinical use in older adults depend on the choice of step-counting algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Older adults (n=1,282). Five open-source step-counting algorithms (ADEPT, Oak, SDT, Verisense, and Stepcount) vs. Comparison among algorithms was evaluated on Step count distributions and their cross-sectional associations with health outcomes (p=<.001). Five open-source step-counting algorithms yielded widely varying mean daily step counts (988 to 23,607) but demonstrated similar, highly significant associations with health outcomes after standardization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: