Why machine learning (ML) has failed physical activity research and how we can improve. Issue 1 (16th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fuller, Daniel; Ferber, Reed; Stanley, Kevin
• Is Part Of: BMJ open sport & exercise medicine. Volume 8:Issue 1(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03-16
• Subjects: research -- accelerometer -- energy expenditure -- evidence-based -- measurement; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Exercise therapy -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001259
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2055-7647

Abstract

Abstract : Measuring physical activity is a critical issue for our understanding of the health benefits of human movement. Machine learning (ML), using accelerometer data, has become a common way to measure physical activity. ML has failed physical activity measurement research in four important ways. First, as a field, physical activity researchers have not adopted and used principles from computer science. Benchmark datasets are common in computer science and allow the direct comparison of different ML approaches. Access to and development of benchmark datasets are critical components in advancing ML for physical activity. Second, the priority of methods development focused on ML has created blind spots in physical activity measurement. Methods, other than cut-point approaches, may be sufficient or superior to ML but these are not prioritised in our research. Third, while ML methods are common in published papers, their integration with software is rare. Physical activity researchers must continue developing and integrating ML methods into software to be fully adopted by applied researchers in the discipline. Finally, training continues to limit the uptake of ML in applied physical activity research. We must improve the development, integration and use of software that allows for ML methods' broad training and application in the field.