A Protocol for AI-Powered Tools to Enhance Mobility and Function in Older Adults: An Evidence and Gap Map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare by enhancing diagnostic accuracy, treatment, and patient monitoring, benefiting older adults by offering personalized care plans. AI-powered tools help manage chronic conditions and maintain independence, making them a valuable asset in addressing aging challenges. Objectives: The objectives are as follows: 1. To identify and describe AI-power-based exercise programs for older adults. 2. To highlight primary evidence gaps in AI interventions for functional improvement and mobility. 3. To evaluate the quality of existing reviews on this topic. Methods: The evidence gap map (EGM) will follow the five-step method, adhering to the Campbell Collaboration guidelines and, if available at the time of reporting, PRISMA-AI standards. Guided by the Metaverse Equitable Rehabilitation Therapy framework, this study will categorize findings across domains like equity, health service integration, interoperability, governance, and humanization. The study will include systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and pre-and post-intervention designs. Results will be reported following PRISMA-AI guidelines. We will use AMSTAR-2 Checklist for Analyzing Systematic Reviews on AI Interventions for Improving mobility and function in Older Adults to evaluate the reliability of systematic reviews and focus on internal validity. Conclusions: This comprehensive analysis will act as a critical resource for guiding future research, refining clinical interventions, and influencing policy decisions to enhance AI-driven solutions for aging populations. The EGM aims to bridge existing evidence gaps, fostering a more informed, equitable, and effective approach to AI solutions for older adults.
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 | 0.086 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.181 | 0.035 |
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".