ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Wearable Intelligent Machine Learning Rehabilitation Assessment for Stroke Patients Compared with Clinician Assessment.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated EMG-Based Classification of Upper Extremity Motor Impairment Levels in Subacute Stroke.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical Application Research on Stroke Situational Intelligent Rehabilitation Training System Based on Wearable Devices: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in stroke risk assessment and management via retinal imaging.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025Review
- Data-Driven Quantitation of Movement Abnormality after Stroke.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Wearable Sensors and Smart Devices to Monitor Rehabilitation Parameters and Sports Performance: An Overview.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Home-based exercise training by using a smartphone app in patients with Parkinson's disease: a feasibility study.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In order to solve the shortcomings of the current clinical scale assessment for stroke patients, such as excessive time consumption, strong subjectivity, and coarse grading, this study designed an intelligent rehabilitation assessment system based on wearable devices and a machine learning algorithm and explored the effectiveness of the system in assessing patients’ rehabilitation outcomes. The accuracy and effectiveness of the intelligent rehabilitation assessment system were verified by comparing the consistency and time between the designed intelligent rehabilitation assessment system scores and the clinical Fugl−Meyer assessment (FMA) scores. A total of 120 stroke patients from two hospitals participated as volunteers in the trial study, and statistical analyses of the two assessment methods were performed. The results showed that the R2 of the total score regression analysis for both methods was 0.9667, 95% CI 0.92−0.98, p < 0.001, and the mean of the deviation was 0.30, 95% CI 0.57−1.17. The percentages of deviations/relative deviations falling within the mean ± 1.96 SD of deviations/relative deviations were 92.50% and 95.83%, respectively. The mean time for system assessment was 35.00% less than that for clinician assessment, p < 0.05. Therefore, wearable intelligent machine learning rehabilitation assessment has a strong and significant correlation with clinician assessment, and the time spent is significantly reduced, which provides an accurate, objective, and effective solution for clinical rehabilitation assessment and remote rehabilitation without the presence of physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.