Clinical Efficacy of Multimodal Exercise Telerehabilitation Based on AI for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise therapy is strongly recommended as a treatment for chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). However, therapist-guided exercise therapy requires significant medical resources. Ordinary digital telerehabilitation affects efficacy due to a lack of guidance and dynamic support. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interactive health promotion systems may solve these problems. Objective: We aimed to explore whether AI-assisted multimodal exercise telerehabilitation is superior to conventional telerehabilitation in the treatment of people with CNSLBP. Methods: This study was a prospective, double-arm, open-label, randomized clinical controlled trial. People with CNSLBP were randomly allocated to either the AI or video group, receiving AI-assisted multimodal exercise therapy or conventional video guidance, respectively, via a WeChat application add-in. The multimodal exercise consisted of deep core muscle, flexibility, Mackenzie, and breathing exercises. The exercises were performed for 30-45 minutes per session, 3 times a week, for 4 weeks. Participants underwent face-to-face assessment at baseline and week 4, and web-based assessment at weeks 2 and 8. The primary outcome was the change in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) relative to baseline at week 4. Secondary outcomes included changes in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Pain Castastrophizing Scale (PCS), Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test, and thickness of the transverse abdominus (TrA) and multifidus (MF) muscles relative to baseline at week 4. Generalized estimating equation and covariance were used to examine the efficacy of the interventions. Results: A total of 38 participants (19 participants per group) were recruited. Eighteen participants in the AI group and 16 participants in the video group completed and were included in the final analysis. There was a significant difference in NRS at week 4 between the AI group and video group (most severe NRS: -3.00 vs -1.50; adjusted mean difference -1.08, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.49; P<.001; mean NRS: -2.61 vs -1.62; adjusted mean difference -0.67, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.15; P=.01). The difference in most severe NRS persisted until week 8 (-3.06 vs -1.69; adjusted mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.18; P=.02). Compared with the video group at week 4, the AI group showed significant improvement in secondary outcomes, including RMDQ, PCS, and core muscle thickness of left TrA, right TrA, left MF, and right MF. Conclusions: We showed that 4 weeks of telerehabilitation based on AI-assisted multimodal exercise has better therapeutic effects compared to conventional exercise telerehabilitation in people with CNSLBP. This study provides guidance for developing effective real-time home-based exercise therapies for people with CNSLBP, which may help reduce economic and human resource costs associated with treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".