Evaluates an IoT-ready framework for shoulder rehabilitation, suggesting improved patient-state assessment accuracy.
In Internet-of-Things (IoT)-based rehabilitation, patient data from wearable sensors (IMU, EMG, heart rate), clinical assessments, and surveys differ in format and granularity, complicating unified patient-state construction. Existing AI-based systems often omit fatigue level or rehabilitation stage, or they place large language models (LLMs) in the clinical decision-making role, exposing patients to hallucination risk. We propose an IoT-ready framework comprising three components: an input-source-independent context abstraction pipeline, a digital twin that simulates clinical-score trajectories, and an LLM Agent that interprets the outputs of a deterministic algorithm and a digital twin as (subject, predicate, object) Triplets to produce a retrieval-augmented clinical report. The algorithm—not the LLM—selects the 13-exercise sequence from Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) item-level responses. Explicit per-layer schemas let IoT-sensor branches be added without changing the downstream interface. Here we evaluate the framework on the clinical-score path (three patient-reported outcome measures and six range-of-motion measures); the multi-modal IoT branches maintain deployment-target functionality. On 48 IRB-approved shoulder rehabilitation patients (144 longitudinal records; augmented to 7200 only to train the trajectory generator), real-only leave-one-subject-out evaluation gave VAS RMSE 0.658 (0–10) and SPADI RMSE 6.499 (0–100). Ablation across four surface forms revealed a fidelity–accuracy trade-off—Narrative highest on template fidelity (BERTScore F1 0.250), raw JSON highest on judge-rated accuracy—and the framework adopts the balanced-midpoint Triplet form. A claim-level audit of the Triplet-form reports left 22–31% of atomic claims unsupported (Claude Sonnet and GPT-4o judges) regardless of guideline retrieval. A raw-LLM control never reproduced the algorithm-defined sequence exactly (0 of 48), supporting deterministic, auditable sequence selection and the need for clinician review before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: