Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41424220›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025

Artificial intelligence in rehabilitation: a living systematic mapping review - first release.

Giovanni Morone, Riccardo Carbonetti, Alex Martino Cinnera, Calogero Malfitano, Alessio Bisirri, Francesco Negrini, REHALISE Group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Giovanni MoroneDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Riccardo CarbonettiNeurofunctional Rehabilitation Unit, Clinical Area of Neuroscience and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Alex Martino CinneraIRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy - a.martino@hsantalucia.it.
Calogero MalfitanoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Alessio BisirriStudio Medico Fisiokinesiterapico Aemme s.r.l., Rome, Italy.
Francesco NegriniPhysical and Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Scientific Institute of Tradate, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Tradate, Varese, Italy.
REHALISE Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing many fields of science, including medicine, by enhancing diagnostic, therapeutic, and decision-making processes. However, understanding how AI can be truly useful in everyday clinical practice remains challenging. This living review systematically investigates current clinical applications of AI in the rehabilitation field, clarifies key concepts, and identifies knowledge gaps. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Scopus, WOS/Embase, and PEDro were systematically searched from December 1, 2014, to December 1, 2024. Retrieved articles were independently screened by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. Extracted data (including bibliometric, clinical, and AI-related variables) were synthesized into a synoptic table using a semi-automated Python pipeline. Reporting adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and the review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420250622434). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 4193 records identified, 240 studies applying AI for rehabilitative purposes met the inclusion criteria. Most studies focused on neurological (57.9%) and orthopedic (22.7%) rehabilitation, particularly involving stroke, Parkinson's disease, and amputation, with research activity mainly concentrated in China (24.6%) and the USA (16.7%). AI has been tested across all stages of the medical process, with a slight predominance in intervention (23.8%), followed by prognosis (17.5%), assessment (16.7%), diagnosis (12.9%), and monitoring (12.5%). It was frequently integrated with wearable sensors, robotic systems, and digital technologies, especially inertial measurement units, surface EMG, mobile apps and EEG. Most AI studies in rehabilitation used raw (37.9%) or tabular data (27.5%), with multimodal inputs in only 11.3%. Over half lacked a comparator (50.8%). Supervised learning (70.8%) and classical machine learning (43.8%) predominated, while external validation (5.8%) and explainability (10.2%) were rarely applied.

conclusionsAI applications in rehabilitation are rapidly expanding, particularly in neurological and orthopedic fields where data-driven and technology-assisted approaches prevail. While this progress is promising, current evidence remains largely based on supervised learning with small, single-type datasets, limited external validation, and scarce explainability, critical issues that must be addressed to enable reliable translation into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRehabilitationHumans

Identifiers

PMID41424220
PMCPMC12824600

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.