ARE PATIENTS WITH ROTATOR CUFF INJURIES PERFORMING AT-HOME PHYSIOTHERAPY? SMART WATCH DATA VERSUS PATIENT-REPORTED DIARIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Physiotherapy is an essential component of upper extremity rehabilitation programs. At-home adherence to exercise prescriptions is a determining factor in the success of physiotherapy treatment, but participation is often poor in the home setting where patients are expected to perform the majority of their exercises. Objectively determining how well a patient is participating in at-home exercise has been an ongoing challenge. Patient diaries, commonly used in research to measure participation, have been shown to have low completion rates and be subject to biases. Wearable technology provides an alternative approach to measure at-home physiotherapy participation. Previously, our team developed a Smart Physiotherapy Activity Recognition System (SPARS) which uses inertial data collected from smart watches and machine learning (ML) to objectively measure at-home participation of shoulder physiotherapy exercises. The objective of this research was to evaluate the agreement of participation measures collected by self-reported patient diaries and SPARS. Inertial data (3-axis accelerometer/gyroscope) was collected by smart watches worn by 45 patients with rotator cuff pathology as they engaged in supervised clinic and unsupervised at-home physiotherapy exercise. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained on labelled inertial data collected during in-clinic physiotherapy sessions to predict periods in at-home recordings where patients were engaging in physiotherapy exercise. Self-reported adherence diaries tracking daily exercise sets completed were collected during the first two weeks of physiotherapy treatment. Participation for each measure was calculated as percentage of days exercised during that two-week period. Self reported participation was also predicated on patient indication that watch was worn while performing exercises. Analysis was performed on a sample size of 34 patients after filtering for data collection issues (watch technical issues n=5/diary non-completion n=6). Figure 1 illustrates self-reported diary (red) and SPARS (blue) participation by patient. Both the diaries and SPARS indicated a high degree of participation over the 2-week period (percentage of prescribed exercise sessions completed: diaries 74%±22% and SPARS 63%±21%) with significant agreement between measures (t=4.96, p=0.000021). The Bland Altman plot shown in Figure 2 suggests that the 11% lower participation as measured by SPARS was not dependent on the overall amount of physiotherapy participation. Significant agreement was found between ML predicted at-home physiotherapy participation measures generated by SPARS and self-reported patient diary participation, with a slightly lower rate of participation indicated by the smart watch data. Diary non-compliance was also noted in 13% of participants. Issues related to wearables (11%) must also be considered in acquiring robust at-home data. Overall, SPARS was shown to be an accurate measure of participation, and may be a suitable replacement for self-reporting, especially as patient engagement declines over lengthier periods of rehabilitation. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».