Cargando…
Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial
Artificial intelligence technology is becoming more prevalent in health care as a tool to improve practice patterns and patient outcomes. This study assessed ability of a commercialized artificial intelligence (AI) mobile application to identify and improve bodyweight squat form in adult participant...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437936/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34518568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97343-y |
_version_ | 1783752261186355200 |
---|---|
author | Luna, Alessandro Casertano, Lorenzo Timmerberg, Jean O’Neil, Margaret Machowsky, Jason Leu, Cheng-Shiun Lin, Jianghui Fang, Zhiqian Douglas, William Agrawal, Sunil |
author_facet | Luna, Alessandro Casertano, Lorenzo Timmerberg, Jean O’Neil, Margaret Machowsky, Jason Leu, Cheng-Shiun Lin, Jianghui Fang, Zhiqian Douglas, William Agrawal, Sunil |
author_sort | Luna, Alessandro |
collection | PubMed |
description | Artificial intelligence technology is becoming more prevalent in health care as a tool to improve practice patterns and patient outcomes. This study assessed ability of a commercialized artificial intelligence (AI) mobile application to identify and improve bodyweight squat form in adult participants when compared to a physical therapist (PT). Participants randomized to AI group (n = 15) performed 3 squat sets: 10 unassisted control squats, 10 squats with performance feedback from AI, and 10 additional unassisted test squats. Participants randomized to PT group (n = 15) also performed 3 identical sets, but instead received performance feedback from PT. AI group intervention did not differ from PT group (log ratio of two odds ratios = − 0.462, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 1.394, 0.471), p = 0.332). AI ability to identify a correct squat generated sensitivity 0.840 (95% CI (0.753, 0.901)), specificity 0.276 (95% CI (0.191, 0.382)), PPV 0.549 (95% CI (0.423, 0.669)), NPV 0.623 (95% CI (0.436, 0.780)), and accuracy 0.565 95% CI (0.477, 0.649)). There was no statistically significant association between group allocation and improved squat performance. Current AI had satisfactory ability to identify correct squat form and limited ability to identify incorrect squat form, which reduced diagnostic capabilities. Trial Registration NCT04624594, 12/11/2020, retrospectively registered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8437936 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84379362021-09-15 Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial Luna, Alessandro Casertano, Lorenzo Timmerberg, Jean O’Neil, Margaret Machowsky, Jason Leu, Cheng-Shiun Lin, Jianghui Fang, Zhiqian Douglas, William Agrawal, Sunil Sci Rep Article Artificial intelligence technology is becoming more prevalent in health care as a tool to improve practice patterns and patient outcomes. This study assessed ability of a commercialized artificial intelligence (AI) mobile application to identify and improve bodyweight squat form in adult participants when compared to a physical therapist (PT). Participants randomized to AI group (n = 15) performed 3 squat sets: 10 unassisted control squats, 10 squats with performance feedback from AI, and 10 additional unassisted test squats. Participants randomized to PT group (n = 15) also performed 3 identical sets, but instead received performance feedback from PT. AI group intervention did not differ from PT group (log ratio of two odds ratios = − 0.462, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 1.394, 0.471), p = 0.332). AI ability to identify a correct squat generated sensitivity 0.840 (95% CI (0.753, 0.901)), specificity 0.276 (95% CI (0.191, 0.382)), PPV 0.549 (95% CI (0.423, 0.669)), NPV 0.623 (95% CI (0.436, 0.780)), and accuracy 0.565 95% CI (0.477, 0.649)). There was no statistically significant association between group allocation and improved squat performance. Current AI had satisfactory ability to identify correct squat form and limited ability to identify incorrect squat form, which reduced diagnostic capabilities. Trial Registration NCT04624594, 12/11/2020, retrospectively registered. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8437936/ /pubmed/34518568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97343-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Luna, Alessandro Casertano, Lorenzo Timmerberg, Jean O’Neil, Margaret Machowsky, Jason Leu, Cheng-Shiun Lin, Jianghui Fang, Zhiqian Douglas, William Agrawal, Sunil Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
title | Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | artificial intelligence application versus physical therapist for squat evaluation: a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437936/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34518568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97343-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lunaalessandro artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT casertanolorenzo artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT timmerbergjean artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT oneilmargaret artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT machowskyjason artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leuchengshiun artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT linjianghui artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT fangzhiqian artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT douglaswilliam artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT agrawalsunil artificialintelligenceapplicationversusphysicaltherapistforsquatevaluationarandomizedcontrolledtrial |