ArticleScience progress
Comparison of an AI-based hand range of motion measurement with manual goniometry: A prospective cross-sectional pilot study in patients and healthy volunteers.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveManual goniometry is the standard for hand range of motion assessment but is time-consuming and requires in-person visits. This pilot study aimed to develop an AI-based measurement method and to compare its agreement with manual goniometry in both healthy volunteers and patients.MethodsIn this prospective cross-sectional pilot study (July 2022 to February 2023), an AI-based method was developed using six hand gestures and MediaPipe Hands. Geometric optimization was used for metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal flexion measurements. For comparison, manual goniometry was performed to evaluate measurement errors. Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.ResultsThe study consisted of 25 healthy individuals (50 hands) and 34 patients (68 hands). The mean difference between the AI-based method and manual measurements was 0.4°±8.8°. Geometric optimization reduced the mean absolute error by 13.5° for metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal flexion measurements and by 3.5 percentage points for Swanson score. Across all parameters, the overall mean absolute error was 5.14°, root mean square error was 7.05°, and normalized RMSE was 8.7%. For the Swanson score, the method demonstrated excellent consistency (ICC: 0.95) with the manual measurements, and Bland-Altman analysis showed a narrower 95% limits of agreement after optimization (-3.5%, 7.7%) compared to the pre-optimized results (-2.4%, 13.2%).ConclusionsThis AI-based method showed acceptable agreement with manual goniometry for most measurements. The Swanson score measurement was clinically acceptable, but thumb movements and proximal interphalangeal flexion require further refinement. The method may serve as a supportive tool for hand function assessment, pending validation in more severe hand impairments and varied environmental conditions.
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.