The Perceived Benefits of an Artificial Intelligence–Embedded Mobile App Implementing Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Self-Management of Chronic Neck and Back Pain: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal neck and back pain are disabling conditions among adults. Use of technology has been suggested as an alternative way to increase adherence to exercise therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the self-perceived benefits of an artificial intelligence (AI)-embedded mobile app to self-manage chronic neck and back pain. METHODS: A total of 161 participants responded to the invitation. The evaluation questionnaire included 14 questions that were intended to explore if using the AI rehabilitation system may (1) increase time spent on therapeutic exercise, (2) affect pain level (assessed by the 0-10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale), and (3) reduce the need for other interventions. RESULTS: An increase in time spent on therapeutic exercise per day was observed. The median Numerical Pain Rating Scale scores were 6 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-8) before and 4 (IQR 3-6) after using the AI-embedded mobile app (95% CI 1.18-1.81). A 3-point reduction was reported by the participants who used the AI-embedded mobile app for more than 6 months. Reduction in the usage of other interventions while using the AI-embedded mobile app was also reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the positive self-perceived beneficiary effect of using the AI-embedded mobile app to provide a personalized therapeutic exercise program. The positive results suggest that it at least warrants further study to investigate the physiological effect of the AI-embedded mobile app and how it compares with routine clinical care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".