An Artificial Intelligence Exercise Coaching Mobile App: Development and Randomized Controlled Trial to Verify Its Effectiveness in Posture Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient physical activity due to social distancing and suppressed outdoor activities increases vulnerability to diseases like cardiovascular diseases, sarcopenia, and severe COVID-19. While bodyweight exercises, such as squats, effectively boost physical activity, incorrect postures risk abnormal muscle activation joint strain, leading to ineffective sessions or even injuries. Avoiding incorrect postures is challenging for novices without expert guidance. Existing solutions for remote coaching and computer-assisted posture correction often prove costly or inefficient. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use deep neural networks to develop a personal workout assistant that offers feedback on squat postures using only mobile devices-smartphones and tablets. Deep learning mimicked experts' visual assessments of proper exercise postures. The effectiveness of the mobile app was evaluated by comparing it with exercise videos, a popular at-home workout choice. METHODS: Twenty participants were recruited without squat exercise experience and divided into an experimental group (EXP) with 10 individuals aged 21.90 (SD 2.18) years and a mean BMI of 20.75 (SD 2.11) and a control group (CTL) with 10 individuals aged 22.60 (SD 1.95) years and a mean BMI of 18.72 (SD 1.23) using randomized controlled trials. A data set with over 20,000 squat videos annotated by experts was created and a deep learning model was trained using pose estimation and video classification to analyze the workout postures. Subsequently, a mobile workout assistant app, Home Alone Exercise, was developed, and a 2-week interventional study, in which the EXP used the app while the CTL only followed workout videos, showed how the app helps people improve squat exercise. RESULTS: The EXP significantly improved their squat postures evaluated by the app after 2 weeks (Pre: 0.20 vs Mid: 4.20 vs Post: 8.00, P=.001), whereas the CTL (without the app) showed no significant change in squat posture (Pre: 0.70 vs Mid: 1.30 vs Post: 3.80, P=.13). Significant differences were observed in the left (Pre: 75.06 vs Mid: 76.24 vs Post: 63.13, P=.02) and right (Pre: 71.99 vs Mid: 76.68 vs Post: 62.82, P=.03) knee joint angles in the EXP before and after exercise, with no significant effect found for the CTL in the left (Pre: 73.27 vs Mid: 74.05 vs Post: 70.70, P=.68) and right (Pre: 70.82 vs Mid: 74.02 vs Post: 70.23, P=.61) knee joint angles. CONCLUSIONS: EXP participants trained with the app experienced faster improvement and learned more nuanced details of the squat exercise. The proposed mobile app, offering cost-effective self-discovery feedback, effectively taught users about squat exercises without expensive in-person trainer sessions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service KCT0008178 (retrospectively registered); https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/24006.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".