Predicting Pain Response to a Remote Musculoskeletal Care Program for Low Back Pain Management: Development of a Prediction Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) presents with diverse manifestations, necessitating personalized treatment approaches that recognize various phenotypes within the same diagnosis, which could be achieved through precision medicine. Although prediction strategies have been explored, including those employing artificial intelligence (AI), they still lack scalability and real-time capabilities. Digital care programs (DCPs) facilitate seamless data collection through the Internet of Things and cloud storage, creating an ideal environment for developing and implementing an AI predictive tool to assist clinicians in dynamically optimizing treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an AI tool that continuously assists physical therapists in predicting an individual's potential for achieving clinically significant pain relief by the end of the program. A secondary aim was to identify predictors of pain nonresponse to guide treatment adjustments. METHODS: Data collected actively (eg, demographic and clinical information) and passively in real-time (eg, range of motion, exercise performance, and socioeconomic data from public data sources) from 6125 patients enrolled in a remote digital musculoskeletal intervention program were stored in the cloud. Two machine learning techniques, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), continuously analyzed session updates up to session 7 to predict the likelihood of achieving significant pain relief at the program end. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), precision-recall curves, specificity, and sensitivity. Model explainability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations values. RESULTS: At each session, the model provided a prediction about the potential of being a pain responder, with performance improving over time (P<.001). By session 7, the RNN achieved an ROC-AUC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.71), and the LightGBM achieved an ROC-AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.72). Both models demonstrated high specificity in scenarios prioritizing high precision. The key predictive features were pain-associated domains, exercise performance, motivation, and compliance, informing continuous treatment adjustments to maximize response rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the potential of an AI predictive tool within a DCP to enhance the management of LBP, supporting physical therapists in redirecting care pathways early and throughout the treatment course. This approach is particularly important for addressing the heterogeneous phenotypes observed in LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04092946; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04092946 and NCT05417685; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05417685.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".