MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386811517 · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2023.100499

A novel approach to tele-rehabilitation: Implementing a biofeedback system using machine learning algorithms

2023· article· en· W4386811517 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Barzegar Khanghah, Geoff Fernie, Atena Roshan Fekr

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning with Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMachine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNaive Bayes classifierSupport vector machineRandom forestRehabilitationPerceptronBiofeedbackArtificial neural networkAlgorithmPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tele-rehabilitation (Tele-rehab) is changing the landscape of virtual care by redefining assessment and breaking accessibility barriers as a convenient substitute for conventional rehabilitation. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid uptake of virtual care. Researchers and health professionals have started developing new tele-rehab platforms, e.g., in the form of video conferencing. Albeit useful, these platforms still require the clinicians’ time and energy. Integrating a biofeedback system that can reliably distinguish between “Correctly Executed” from “Incorrectly Executed” exercises into tele-rehab platforms can help patients to perform rehab exercises correctly, avoid injuries, and enhance recovery. To address this gap, this paper proposes an automated system that uses machine learning to classify correct and incorrect executions of 9 rehabilitation gestures. The model is trained on 24 angle signals extracted from different body sections. The angle signals are obtained in 3D space, and 10 features are extracted from each signal. Six different classifiers, including Random Forest, Multi-Layer Perceptron Artificial Neural Networks, Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Logistic Regression, are used, and evaluated with 10-Fold and Leave One Subject Out (LOSO) cross validations. The best classifiers achieved an average accuracy of 89.86% ± 3.38% and F1-Score of 72.84% ± 11.98% for 10-Fold and an average accuracy of 88.21% ± 3.90% and F1-Score of 68.16%±13.28% for LOSO. The proposed system has great potential to be integrated into tele-rehab platforms to help patients perform their exercises reliably. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Learning with ApplicationsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207