Enabling precision rehabilitation interventions using wearable sensors and machine learning to track motor recovery
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Two included studies used the Wolf Motor Function Test.
“Two included studies used the WMFT [65,67,73].”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [67]
In study [67], the random forest model achieved an RMSE of 0.38.
“0.38 RMSE”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [67]
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
- ORCID
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2020-09-21
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-121
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7506010
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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