Rehabilitation-Oriented Serious Game Development and Evaluation Guidelines for Musculoskeletal Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The progress in information and communication technology (ICT) led to the development of a new rehabilitation technique called "serious game for functional rehabilitation." Previous works have shown that serious games can be used for general health and specific disease management. However, there is still lack of consensus on development and evaluation guidelines. It is important to note that the game performance depends on the designed scenario. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to develop specific game scenarios and evaluate them with a panel of musculoskeletal patients to propose game development and evaluation guidelines. METHODS: A two-stage workflow was proposed using determinant framework. The development guideline includes the selection of three-dimensional (3D) computer graphics technologies and tools, the modeling of physical aspects, the design of rehabilitation scenarios, and the implementation of the proposed scenarios. The evaluation guideline consists of the definition of evaluation metrics, the execution of the evaluation campaign, the analysis of user results and feedbacks, and the improvement of the designed game. RESULTS: The case study for musculoskeletal disorders on the healthy control and patient groups showed the usefulness of these guidelines and associated games. All participants enjoyed the 2 developed games (football and object manipulation), and found them challenging and amusing. In particular, some healthy subjects increased their score when enhancing the level of difficulty. Furthermore, there were no risks and accidents associated with the execution of these games. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that with the proven effectiveness of the proposed guidelines and associated games, this new rehabilitation game may be translated into clinical routine practice for the benefit of patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".