Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205472›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025

Systematic review of AI/ML applications in multi-domain robotic rehabilitation: trends, gaps, and future directions.

Giovanna Nicora, Samuele Pe, Gabriele Santangelo, Lucia Billeci, Irene Giovanna Aprile, Marco Germanotta, Riccardo Bellazzi, Enea Parimbelli, Silvana Quaglini

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Artificial intelligence in rehabilitation: a living systematic mapping review - first release.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Giovanna NicoraDepartment of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. giovanna.nicora@unipv.it.
Samuele PeDepartment of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Gabriele SantangeloDepartment of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Lucia BilleciInstitute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IFC), Pisa, Italy.
Irene Giovanna AprileNeuromotor Rehabilitation Department, IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Florence, Italy.
Marco GermanottaNeuromotor Rehabilitation Department, IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Florence, Italy.
Riccardo BellazziDepartment of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Enea Parimbelli *Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Silvana Quaglini *Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

Funding

Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca # PNC0000007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic technology is expected to transform rehabilitation settings, by providing precise, repetitive, and task-specific interventions, thereby potentially improving patients' clinical outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have been widely applied in different areas to support robotic rehabilitation, from controlling robot movements to real-time patient assessment. To provide an overview of the current landscape and the impact of AI/ML use in robotics rehabilitation, we performed a systematic review focusing on the use of AI and robotics in rehabilitation from a broad perspective, encompassing different pathologies and body districts, and considering both motor and neurocognitive rehabilitation. We searched the Scopus and IEEE Xplore databases, focusing on the studies involving human participants. After article retrieval, a tagging phase was carried out to devise a comprehensive and easily-interpretable taxonomy: its categories include the aim of the AI/ML within the rehabilitation system, the type of algorithms used, and the location of robots and sensors. The 201 selected articles span multiple domains and diverse aims, such as movement classification, trajectory prediction, and patient evaluation, demonstrating the potential of ML to revolutionize personalized therapy and improve patient engagement. ML is reported as highly effective in predicting movement intentions, assessing clinical outcomes, and detecting compensatory movements, providing insights into the future of personalized rehabilitation interventions. Our analysis also reveals pitfalls in the current use of AI/ML in this area, such as potential explainability issues and poor generalization ability when these systems are applied in real-world settings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningNeurological RehabilitationRehabilitationRoboticsHumansArtificial intelligenceCognitiveDeep learningGaitMovementPatient assessmentPhysical therapySensorStrokeTrauma

Identifiers

PMID40205472
PMCPMC11984262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.