Comparing In-Person, Standard Telehealth, and Remote Musculoskeletal Examination With a Novel Augmented Reality Exercise Game System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Comparison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current telemedicine technologies are not fully optimized for conducting physical examinations. The Virtual Remote Tele-Physical Examination (VIRTEPEX) system, a novel proprietary technology platform using a Microsoft Kinect-based augmented reality game system to track motion and estimate force, has the potential to assist with conducting asynchronous, remote musculoskeletal examinations. Objective: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of the VIRTEPEX system as a supplement to telehealth musculoskeletal strength assessments. Methods: In this cross-sectional pilot study, 12 study participants with upper extremity pain and/or weakness underwent strength evaluations for four upper extremity movements using in-person, telehealth, VIRTEPEX, and composite (telehealth plus VIRTEPEX) assessments. The evaluators were blinded to each other's assessments. The primary outcome was feasibility, as determined by participant recruitment, study completion, and safety. The secondary outcome was preliminary evaluation of inter-rater agreement between in-person, telehealth, and VIRTEPEX strength assessments, including κ statistics. Results: This pilot study had an 80% recruitment rate, a 100% completion rate, and reported no adverse events. In-person and telehealth evaluations achieved highest overall agreement (85.71%), followed by agreements between in-person and composite (75%), in-person and VIRTEPEX (62.5%), and telehealth and VIRTEPEX (62.5%) evaluations. However, for shoulder flexion, agreement between in-person and VIRTEPEX evaluations (78.57%; κ=0.571, 95% CI 0.183 to 0.960) and in-person and composite evaluations (78.57%; κ=0.571, 95% CI 0.183 to 0.960) was higher than that between in-person and telehealth evaluations (71.43%; κ=0.429, 95% CI -0.025 to 0.882). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of asynchronous VIRTEPEX examinations and supports the potential for VIRTEPEX to supplement and add value to standard telehealth platforms. Further studies with an additional development of VIRTEPEX and larger sample sizes for adequate power are warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".