Impact of varying accelerometer epoch length on physical activity patterns in adults: Considerations for public health

Rayane Haddadj; Charlotte Verdot; Benoît Salanave; Valérie Deschamps; Jérémy Vanhelst

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316176

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 1, 2024
29 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa, Editor PONE-D-24-20121Impact of varying accelerometer epoch length on physical activity patterns in adults: considerations for public healthPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Haddadj, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 13 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: It was a pleasure to review this well-written manuscript, which examined the impact of varying epoch lengths on accelerometer-derived time spent in activity behaviours in adults. The findings can be of interest and advance knowledge of those in the activity behaviour research field. I have provided some comments/questions/suggestions below on the manuscript that the authors may consider if they find them relevant to improve the scientific quality. Major comments: 1. Several cut-off points for the accelerometer-derived time spent in the different physical activity spectrum have been reported in the literature, and this is partly determined by several factors including the age distributions of the studied participants. The authors could help the reader by defining the specific cut-off thresholds for the different activity behaviours (sedentary behaviour and the different intensities of physical activity). 2. Given the wide age range of the included participants, the authors could consider providing a brief justification of the 200 counts per minute (cpm) threshold for sedentary behaviour to help orient the reader. 3. Another important factor which has been noted in the literature regarding activity behaviours (sedentary behaviour, and different intensities of physical activity) cut-off points selection for accelerometer raw data processing is the epoch length. The authors could clarify the cut-off thresholds applied for the various epoch lengths for the activity behaviours. 4. Did the authors consider checking or accounting for the potential influence of age distribution, gender and weight/BMI distribution on the estimated time spent in the activity behaviours for the various epoch lengths? Minor comments: 1. The authors mentioned in the abstract results that “Longer epochs led to reduced moderate and vigorous PA, increased light PA, and less sedentary time, affecting adherence to World Health Organization PA guidelines” (lines 23 – 25). But it is clear in the abstract if that was examined. 2. The authors could be a little specific about the 13 participants excluded based on sociodemographic characteristics (…lines 83 – 84). Considering the nature of the analysis reported in the study, are the missing variables relevant for processing the accelerometer data? 3. There may probably be a typo in the description provided on …lines 113 – 115 regarding “qualitative”. 4. It may interest some readers if the pair-wise post hoc test results are also reported and interpreted as it may provide some relevant insights regarding epoch length selection. 5. The authors could also consider discussing their observations within the context of cut-off points used for the data processing. 6. It may interest some readers if the authors also note in the discussion the potential influence of the body location where the participant wore the device on the estimation of the time spent in the activity behaviours. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316176.r001
Revision 1
13 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you for these comments designed to improve our paper, “Impact of varying accelerometer epoch length on physical activity patterns in adults: considerations for public health” which we have addressed below. We greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by reviewer to improve our paper. We hope our manuscript will now be suitable for publication in Plos One. Sincerely, Rayane Haddadj Major comments 1. Several cut-off points for the accelerometer-derived time spent in the different physical activity spectrum have been reported in the literature, and this is partly determined by several factors including the age distributions of the studied participants. The authors could help the reader by defining the specific cut-off thresholds for the different activity behaviours (sedentary behaviour and the different intensities of physical activity). Thank you for this remark. We agree that providing the specific thresholds for the different activity behaviours would enhance the clarity of the manuscript. In response, we have added the exact accelerometer-derived thresholds used to classify sedentary behaviour and the various intensities of physical activity (light, moderate, and vigorous). These thresholds are now clearly defined, considering the age distribution of our study population, as supported by the relevant literature (lines 110 to 116). 2. Given the wide age range of the included participants, the authors could consider providing a brief justification of the 200 counts per minute (cpm) threshold for sedentary behaviour to help orient the reader. We acknowledge the importance of justifying the 200 counts per minute (cpm) threshold for sedentary behaviour. To address this, we have included a relevant reference in the manuscript that supports the use of this threshold across different age groups (lines 112 and 114). 3. Another important factor which has been noted in the literature regarding activity behaviours (sedentary behaviour, and different intensities of physical activity) cut-off points selection for accelerometer raw data processing is the epoch length. The authors could clarify the cut-off thresholds applied for the various epoch lengths for the activity behaviours. We now have clarified how the thresholds for sedentary behaviour and physical activity were adjusted according to the different epoch lengths used for accelerometer data processing (lines 100 and 101). 4. Did the authors consider checking or accounting for the potential influence of age distribution, gender and weight/BMI distribution on the estimated time spent in the activity behaviours for the various epoch lengths? Thank you for this interesting suggestion. We have run additional analysis stratified on sex, age category and BMI status (Supplement files). We also commented those results in the text (line 149 and 150). Minor comments 1. The authors mentioned in the abstract results that “Longer epochs led to reduced moderate and vigorous PA, increased light PA, and less sedentary time, affecting adherence to World Health Organization PA guidelines” (lines 23 – 25). But it is clear in the abstract if that was examined. Thank you for this remark. To clarify this point, we have added a secondary objective in the abstract that states our examination of the effects of epoch length selection on computed prevalence of WHO physical activity guidelines (line 16 and 17). 2. The authors could be a little specific about the 13 participants excluded based on sociodemographic characteristics (…lines 83 – 84). Considering the nature of the analysis reported in the study, are the missing variables relevant for processing the accelerometer data? We have now clarified that the 13 participants were excluded due to missing age data, which is critical for appropriately selecting the accelerometer thresholds (line 87, 88 and Figure 1). 3. There may probably be a typo in the description provided on …lines 113 – 115 regarding “qualitative”. Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the typo by changing "qualitative" to "quantitative". 4. It may interest some readers if the pair-wise post hoc test results are also reported and interpreted as it may provide some relevant insights regarding epoch length selection. We have added the pair-wise post hoc test results, in Table 2 and presented them in the results (lines 147 to 149) and discussion (line 184 to 186). 5. The authors could also consider discussing their observations within the context of cut-off points used for the data processing. We have added a sentence in the limitations to highlight the context of cut-off points (line 241 and 242). 6. It may interest some readers if the authors also note in the discussion the potential influence of the body location where the participant wore the device on the estimation of the time spent in the activity behaviours. Thank you for this interesting remark. We have added a comment on this topic in the limitations section (line 241and 242). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewer_JV_CV.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316176.r002
9 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa, Editor Impact of varying accelerometer epoch length on physical activity patterns in adults: considerations for public health PONE-D-24-20121R1 Dear Dr. Haddadj, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Some results are repeated twice. See L130: There is no significant effect of epoch length on wear time (p=0.34) and L137-138: Wear time was not affected by epoch length selection (p=0.34) Reviewer #3: We thank the authors for their detailed responses to the review comments and revision work. After review, the authors have fully responded to all major and minor review comments and improved the methodology, results, discussion and figures accordingly. The revised manuscript is clearly structured, rigorously argued, with reasonable data analyses, and the limitations of the study and future research directions have been appropriately discussed. Overall, the article has met the criteria for publication and no further revisions have been suggested. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316176.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa, Editor PONE-D-24-20121R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Haddadj, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Julio Alejandro Henriques Castro da Costa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316176.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .