These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18635874)

  • 1. Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers.
    Rothney MP; Apker GA; Song Y; Chen KY
    J Appl Physiol (1985); 2008 Oct; 105(4):1091-7. PubMed ID: 18635874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Validity of the ActiGraph GT1M during walking and cycling.
    Herman Hansen B; Børtnes I; Hildebrand M; Holme I; Kolle E; Anderssen SA
    J Sports Sci; 2014; 32(6):510-6. PubMed ID: 24117333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mechanical and free living comparisons of four generations of the Actigraph activity monitor.
    Ried-Larsen M; Brønd JC; Brage S; Hansen BH; Grydeland M; Andersen LB; Møller NC
    Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act; 2012 Sep; 9():113. PubMed ID: 22971175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running.
    John D; Tyo B; Bassett DR
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2010 Feb; 42(2):368-74. PubMed ID: 19927022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of two ActiGraph accelerometer generations in the assessment of physical activity in free living conditions.
    Vanhelst J; Mikulovic J; Bui-Xuan G; Dieu O; Blondeau T; Fardy P; Béghin L
    BMC Res Notes; 2012 Apr; 5():187. PubMed ID: 22534207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Using a robotic arm to assess the variability of motion sensors.
    Gorzelniak L; Dias A; Soyer H; Knoll A; Horsch A
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2011; 169():897-901. PubMed ID: 21893876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Head-to-head comparison between Actigraph 7164 and GT1M accelerometers in adolescents.
    Tanha T; Tornberg ÅB; Wollmer P; Dencker M
    Clin Physiol Funct Imaging; 2013 Mar; 33(2):162-5. PubMed ID: 23383695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validation of the Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers for walking and running in adults.
    Abel MG; Hannon JC; Sell K; Lillie T; Conlin G; Anderson D
    Appl Physiol Nutr Metab; 2008 Dec; 33(6):1155-64. PubMed ID: 19088773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of two Actigraph models for assessing free-living physical activity in Indian adolescents.
    Corder K; Brage S; Ramachandran A; Snehalatha C; Wareham N; Ekelund U
    J Sports Sci; 2007 Dec; 25(14):1607-11. PubMed ID: 17852668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph activity monitors under free-living conditions: do they provide comparable assessments of overall physical activity in 9-year old children?
    Grydeland M; Hansen BH; Ried-Larsen M; Kolle E; Anderssen SA
    BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil; 2014; 6():26. PubMed ID: 25031839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Unit-specific calibration of Actigraph accelerometers in a mechanical setup - is it worth the effort? The effect on random output variation caused by technical inter-instrument variability in the laboratory and in the field.
    Moeller NC; Korsholm L; Kristensen PL; Andersen LB; Wedderkopp N; Froberg K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Apr; 8():19. PubMed ID: 18405353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Validation of the GT3X ActiGraph in children and comparison with the GT1M ActiGraph.
    Hänggi JM; Phillips LR; Rowlands AV
    J Sci Med Sport; 2013 Jan; 16(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 22749938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Validity of physical activity intensity predictions by ActiGraph, Actical, and RT3 accelerometers.
    Rothney MP; Schaefer EV; Neumann MM; Choi L; Chen KY
    Obesity (Silver Spring); 2008 Aug; 16(8):1946-52. PubMed ID: 18535553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors.
    Sasaki JE; John D; Freedson PS
    J Sci Med Sport; 2011 Sep; 14(5):411-6. PubMed ID: 21616714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Validity of the ActivPAL™ and the ActiGraph monitors in preschoolers.
    De Decker E; De Craemer M; Santos-Lozano A; Van Cauwenberghe E; De Bourdeaudhuij I; Cardon G
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2013 Oct; 45(10):2002-11. PubMed ID: 23524516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of the Actigraph GT1M and GT3X accelerometers under standardized and free-living conditions.
    Kaminsky LA; Ozemek C
    Physiol Meas; 2012 Nov; 33(11):1869-76. PubMed ID: 23111061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of three models of actigraph accelerometers during free living and controlled laboratory conditions.
    Lee KY; Macfarlane DJ; Cerin E
    Eur J Sport Sci; 2013; 13(3):332-9. PubMed ID: 23679150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accelerometer counts and raw acceleration output in relation to mechanical loading.
    Rowlands AV; Stiles VH
    J Biomech; 2012 Feb; 45(3):448-54. PubMed ID: 22218284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Calibration and validation of wearable monitors.
    Bassett DR; Rowlands A; Trost SG
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2012 Jan; 44(1 Suppl 1):S32-8. PubMed ID: 22157772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of ActiGraph's low-frequency filter in laboratory and free-living environments.
    Feito Y; Garner HR; Bassett DR
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2015 Jan; 47(1):211-7. PubMed ID: 24870583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.