A systematic scoping review of latent class analysis applied to accelerometry-assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior

Background Latent class analysis (LCA) identifies distinct groups within a heterogeneous population, but its application to accelerometry-assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior has not been systematically explored. We conducted a systematic scoping review to describe the application of LCA to accelerometry. Methods Comprehensive searches in PubMed, Web of Science, CINHAL, SPORTDiscus, and Embase identified studies published through December 31, 2021. Using Covidence, two researchers independently evaluated inclusion criteria and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies with LCA applied to accelerometry or combined accelerometry/self-reported measures were selected. Data extracted included study characteristics and both accelerometry and LCA methods. Results Of 2555 papers found, 66 full-text papers were screened, and 12 papers (11 cross-sectional, 1 cohort) from 8 unique studies were included. Study sample sizes ranged from 217–7931 (mean 2249, standard deviation 2780). Across 8 unique studies, latent class variables included measures of physical activity (100%) and sedentary behavior (75%). About two-thirds (63%) of the studies used accelerometry only and 38% combined accelerometry and self-report to derive latent classes. The accelerometer-based variables in the LCA model included measures by day of the week (38%), weekday vs. weekend (13%), weekly average (13%), dichotomized minutes/day (13%), sex specific z-scores (13%), and hour-by-hour (13%). The criteria to guide the selection of the final number of classes and model fit varied across studies, including Bayesian Information Criterion (63%), substantive knowledge (63%), entropy (50%), Akaike information criterion (50%), sample size (50%), Bootstrap likelihood ratio test (38%), and visual inspection (38%). The studies explored up to 5 (25%), 6 (38%), or 7+ (38%) classes, ending with 3 (50%), 4 (13%), or 5 (38%) final classes. Conclusions This review explored the application of LCA to physical activity and sedentary behavior and identified areas of improvement for future studies leveraging LCA. LCA was used to identify unique groupings as a data reduction tool, to combine self-report and accelerometry, and to combine different physical activity intensities and sedentary behavior in one LCA model or separate models

A systematic scoping review of latent class analysis applied to accelerometry-assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior.

BackgroundLatent class analysis (LCA) identifies distinct groups within a heterogeneous population, but its application to accelerometry-assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior has not been systematically explored. We conducted a systematic scoping review to describe the application of LCA to accelerometry.MethodsComprehensive searches in PubMed, Web of Science, CINHAL, SPORTDiscus, and Embase identified studies published through December 31, 2021. Using Covidence, two researchers independently evaluated inclusion criteria and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies with LCA applied to accelerometry or combined accelerometry/self-reported measures were selected. Data extracted included study characteristics and both accelerometry and LCA methods.ResultsOf 2555 papers found, 66 full-text papers were screened, and 12 papers (11 cross-sectional, 1 cohort) from 8 unique studies were included. Study sample sizes ranged from 217-7931 (mean 2249, standard deviation 2780). Across 8 unique studies, latent class variables included measures of physical activity (100%) and sedentary behavior (75%). About two-thirds (63%) of the studies used accelerometry only and 38% combined accelerometry and self-report to derive latent classes. The accelerometer-based variables in the LCA model included measures by day of the week (38%), weekday vs. weekend (13%), weekly average (13%), dichotomized minutes/day (13%), sex specific z-scores (13%), and hour-by-hour (13%). The criteria to guide the selection of the final number of classes and model fit varied across studies, including Bayesian Information Criterion (63%), substantive knowledge (63%), entropy (50%), Akaike information criterion (50%), sample size (50%), Bootstrap likelihood ratio test (38%), and visual inspection (38%). The studies explored up to 5 (25%), 6 (38%), or 7+ (38%) classes, ending with 3 (50%), 4 (13%), or 5 (38%) final classes.ConclusionsThis review explored the application of LCA to physical activity and sedentary behavior and identified areas of improvement for future studies leveraging LCA. LCA was used to identify unique groupings as a data reduction tool, to combine self-report and accelerometry, and to combine different physical activity intensities and sedentary behavior in one LCA model or separate models

The contribution of glacial isostatic adjustment to projections of sea‐level change along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America

We determine the contribution of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA ) to future relative sea‐level change for the North American coastline between Newfoundland and Texas. We infer GIA model parameters using recently compiled and quality‐assessed databases of past sea‐level changes, including new databases for the United States Gulf Coast and Atlantic Canada. At 13 cities along this coastline, we estimate the GIA contribution to range from a few centimeters (e.g., 3 [−1 to 9] cm Miami) to a few decimeters (e.g., 18 [12–22] cm, Halifax) for the period 2085–2100 relative to 2006–2015 (1−σ ranges given). We provide estimates of uncertainty in the GIA component using two different methods; the more conservative approach produces total ranges (1−σ confidence) that vary from 3 to 16 cm for the cities considered. Contributions from ocean steric and dynamic changes as well as those from changes in land ice are also estimated to provide context for the GIA projections. When summing the contributions from all three processes at the 13 cities considered along this coastline, using median or best‐estimate values, the GIA signal comprises 5–38% of the total depending on the adopted climate forcing and location. The contributions from ocean dynamic/steric changes and ice mass loss are similar in amplitude but with spatial variation that approximately cancels, resulting in GIA dominating the net spatial variability north of 35°N