MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408538635 · doi:10.2196/69150

Kinetic Pattern Recognition in Home-Based Knee Rehabilitation Using Machine Learning Clustering Methods on the Slider Digital Physiotherapy Device: Prospective Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4408538635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clement Twumasi, Mikail Aktas, N.B. Santoni

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisHierarchical clusteringSilhouetteComputer scienceRehabilitationConsensus clusteringObservational studyArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMachine learningData miningPhysical therapyFuzzy clusteringMedicineCURE data clustering algorithmStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in rehabilitation sciences have progressively used computational techniques to improve diagnostic and treatment approaches. However, the analysis of high-dimensional, time-dependent data continues to pose a significant problem. Prior research has used clustering techniques on rehabilitation data to identify movement patterns and forecast recovery outcomes. Nonetheless, these initiatives have not yet used force or motion datasets obtained outside a clinical setting, thereby limiting the capacity for therapeutic decisions. Biomechanical data analysis has demonstrated considerable potential in bridging these gaps and improving clinical decision-making in rehabilitation settings. OBJECTIVE: This study presents a comprehensive clustering analysis of multidimensional movement datasets captured using a novel home exercise device, the "Slider". The aim is to identify clinically relevant movement patterns and provide answers to open research questions for the first time to inform personalized rehabilitation protocols, predict individual recovery trajectories, and assess the risks of potential postoperative complications. METHODS: High-dimensional, time-dependent, bilateral knee kinetic datasets were independently analyzed from 32 participants using four unsupervised clustering techniques: k-means, hierarchical clustering, partition around medoids, and CLARA (Clustering Large Applications). The data comprised force, laser-measured distance, and optical tracker coordinates from lower limb activities. The optimal clusters identified through the unsupervised clustering methods were further evaluated and compared using silhouette analysis to quantify their performance. Key determinants of cluster membership were assessed, including demographic factors (eg, gender, BMI, and age) and pain levels, by using a logistic regression model with analysis of covariance adjustment. RESULTS: Three distinct, time-varying movement patterns or clusters were identified for each knee. Hierarchical clustering performed best for the right knee datasets (with an average silhouette score of 0.637), while CLARA was the most effective for the left knee datasets (with an average silhouette score of 0.598). Key predictors of the movement cluster membership were discovered for both knees. BMI was the most influential determinant of cluster membership for the right knee, where higher BMI decreased the odds of cluster-2 membership (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96; P<.001) but increased the odds for cluster-3 assignment relative to cluster 1 (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06; P<.001). For the left knee, all predictors of cluster-2 membership were significant (.001≤P≤.008), whereas only BMI (P=.81) could not predict the likelihood of an individual belonging to cluster 3 compared to cluster 1. Gender was the strongest determinant for the left knee, with male participants significantly likely to belong to cluster 3 (OR 3.52, 95% CI 2.91-4.27; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: These kinetic patterns offer significant insights for creating personalized rehabilitation procedures, potentially improving patient outcomes. These findings underscore the efficacy of unsupervised clustering techniques in the analysis of biomechanical data for clinical rehabilitation applications.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→