Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Web-Based Upper Limb Home Rehabilitation System Using a Smartwatch and Machine Learning Model for Chronic Stroke Survivors: Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in wearable sensor technology have shown the feasibility of remote physical therapy at home. In particular, the current COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the need and opportunity of internet-based wearable technology in future health care systems. Previous research has shown the feasibility of human activity recognition technologies for monitoring rehabilitation activities in home environments; however, few comprehensive studies ranging from development to clinical evaluation exist. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) develop a home-based rehabilitation (HBR) system that can recognize and record the type and frequency of rehabilitation exercises conducted by the user using a smartwatch and smartphone app equipped with a machine learning (ML) algorithm and (2) evaluate the efficacy of the home-based rehabilitation system through a prospective comparative study with chronic stroke survivors. METHODS: The HBR system involves an off-the-shelf smartwatch, a smartphone, and custom-developed apps. A convolutional neural network was used to train the ML algorithm for detecting home exercises. To determine the most accurate way for detecting the type of home exercise, we compared accuracy results with the data sets of personal or total data and accelerometer, gyroscope, or accelerometer combined with gyroscope data. From March 2018 to February 2019, we conducted a clinical study with two groups of stroke survivors. In total, 17 and 6 participants were enrolled for statistical analysis in the HBR group and control group, respectively. To measure clinical outcomes, we performed the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity, grip power test, Beck Depression Inventory, and range of motion (ROM) assessment of the shoulder joint at 0, 6, and 12 months, and at a follow-up assessment 6 weeks after retrieving the HBR system. RESULTS: The ML model created with personal data involving accelerometer combined with gyroscope data (5590/5601, 99.80%) was the most accurate compared with accelerometer (5496/5601, 98.13%) or gyroscope data (5381/5601, 96.07%). In the comparative study, the drop-out rates in the control and HBR groups were 40% (4/10) and 22% (5/22) at 12 weeks and 100% (10/10) and 45% (10/22) at 18 weeks, respectively. The HBR group (n=17) showed a significant improvement in the mean WMFT score (P=.02) and ROM of flexion (P=.004) and internal rotation (P=.001). The control group (n=6) showed a significant change only in shoulder internal rotation (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a home care system using a commercial smartwatch and ML model can facilitate participation in home training and improve the functional score of the WMFT and shoulder ROM of flexion and internal rotation in the treatment of patients with chronic stroke. This strategy can possibly be a cost-effective tool for the home care treatment of stroke survivors in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service KCT0004818; https://tinyurl.com/y92w978t.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".