Cited by 130Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics

Enabling precision rehabilitation interventions using wearable sensors and machine learning to track motor recovery

Open access
Adans-Dester, Catherine, Hankov, Nicolas, O’Brien, Anne, Vergara-Diaz, Gloria, Black-Schaffer, Randie, Zafonte, Ross, Dy, Jennifer, Lee, Sunghoon I. +1 more·2020·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

The need to develop patient-specific interventions is apparent when one considers that clinical studies often report satisfactory motor gains only in a portion of participants. This observation provides the foundation for "precision rehabilitation". Tracking and predicting outcomes defining the recovery trajectory is key in this context. Data collected using wearable sensors provide clinicians with the opportunity to do so with little burden on clinicians and patients. The approach proposed in this paper relies on machine learning-based algorithms to derive clinical score estimates from wearable sensor data collected during functional motor tasks. Sensor-based score estimates showed strong agreement with those generated by clinicians. Score estimates of upper-limb impairment severity and movement quality were marked by a coefficient of determination of 0.86 and 0.79, respectively. The application of the proposed approach to monitoring patients' responsiveness to rehabilitation is expected to contribute to the development of patient-specific interventions, aiming to maximize motor gains.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-020-00328-w

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 130

Authors
Adans-Dester, C., Hankov, N., O’Brien, A., Vergara-Diaz, G., Black-Schaffer, R., Zafonte, R., Dy, J., Lee, S. I., & Bonato, P.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Bonato, Paolo
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2020-09-21
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
121-121
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088882399
Cited by
130
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R24HD050821, R24HD065688)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Keywords
precision rehabilitation, wearable sensors, motor recovery, upper limb impairment, movement quality, sensor-based assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review