Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 43 references

Adaptive Framework for Ambient Intelligence in Rehabilitation Assistance

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A smartphone-only rehabilitation framework can expose 89% of exercise errors in single-camera video and have GPT-4-class vision models draft corrections for therapist review.

desk verdict A genuine systems integration for home rehab, but both headline numbers rest on same-performer data and model-as-judge metrics; worth a conditional review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08624 v1 pith:26WBGR3C submitted 2025-07-11 cs.HC cs.AI

Gábor Baranyi , Zsolt Csibi , Kristian Fenech , Áron Fóthi , Zsófia Gaál , Joul Skaf , András Lőrincz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords ambientintelligencehomerehabilitationvision-languagemodels3Dreconstructiondynamictimewarpingavatarprivacytotalkneereplacementsmartphoneguidance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a smartphone-based support system for home rehabilitation after total knee replacement. The phone reconstructs the living space in 3D, guides the patient to a safe practice spot, records the exercise, replaces the patient's body with a privacy-protecting avatar, and aligns the home motion with a clinic reference video. The load-bearing evidence is two numbers: Dynamic Time Warping makes about 89% of exercise errors visible in single-camera frames, and the best vision-language model reaches about 60% semantic agreement with the therapist's ground-truth corrections under the best prompt combination. The authors argue that this is enough to make AI a useful pre-filter for the therapist, not a replacement for human judgment. If correct, the framework provides a concrete template for privacy-compliant, machine-guided rehabilitation at home.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a four-stage pipeline. First, Dynamic Time Warping aligns the time series of joint angles or SKEL pose parameters between the clinic reference and the home recording, and the frame with the largest mean-square or mean-absolute error is selected as the most erroneous frame for review. Second, a body-matched avatar (SMPL parameters refined by SKEL) replaces the patient's image, preserving biomechanical detail while hiding identity. Third, the selected image and skeleton pairs are fed to a vision-language model through zero-shot Chain-of-Thought prompting, optionally enriched with error lists and body-region hints, to generate correction instructions. Fourth, correctness is measured by embedding cosine similarity and by asking GPT-4 Vision whether the generated instruction means the same thing as the therapist's ground truth. The same avatar, together with a Gaussian-Splatting reconstruction of the home, feeds the placement optimizer and navigation module that position the patient and camera before recording begins.

What would settle it

Run the same DTW frame-selection protocol on recordings in which the home performer is a real patient and the reference video is made by the therapist; if the share of errors visible in the selected frames drops well below 89%, or if VLM semantic agreement with therapist ground truth falls below the reported 60%, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single smartphone running the AIRS pipeline can make home rehabilitation after total knee replacement machine-guidable. The pipeline reconstructs the room, plans a safe exercise area and camera pose, navigates the patient into position, records the exercise, replaces the person with a body-matched SMPL/SKEL avatar to protect privacy, and synchronizes the home video with the clinic reference using Dynamic Time Warping. On the 263-video dataset, the DTW-selected frames made 89% of the documented errors visible to human reviewers, with subtle balance errors as the main misses. In the vision-language study on 15 error videos, GPT-4 Vision outperformed the open-source models by a significant margin on embedding similarity and reached 60% semantic agreement with the therapist's ground-truth corrections in the best prompt configuration, which combined image, SMPL, and body-region context. The authors conclude that such models are not yet reliable enough to advise patients directly, but are useful for flagging errors and drafting corrections for therapist review.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the same person performs both the clinical reference and the home error videos, so skeletons align without cross-subject normalization, a condition that real patients, whose bodies differ from the therapist's, do not satisfy and that the dataset never tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A patient with only a smartphone can be guided to record exercise videos that expose most mistakes to a remote therapist: 89% of the errors in the 263-video dataset are visible in DTW-selected single-camera frames.
  • Vision-language feedback at the current level, around 60% semantic agreement with therapist ground truth for GPT-4 Vision under the best prompts, is useful for pre-filtering and drafting but not for unsupervised patient advice.
  • Replacing the patient's image with a biomechanically matched avatar satisfies the privacy requirements of the EU AI Act while still allowing motion analysis.
  • The room-reconstruction, placement-optimization, and navigation modules transfer to other rehabilitation exercises and to users with visual or hearing impairments.
  • Undetectable balance errors in single-camera recordings motivate RGBD-equipped smartphones as the next hardware step for home rehabilitation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to treat the DTW-selected (clinic frame, home error frame) pairs as labeled training data for a smaller on-device vision model, which would remove the cloud dependency and latency of a GPT-4 call.
  • An independent panel of therapists rating correction adequacy would give a sharper test of the 60% semantic-agreement number than a same-family model judge does.
  • Once cross-subject skeleton alignment is solved, the same error frames could drive closed-loop therapy adaptation, such as automatically suggesting easier ranges of motion or more repetitions rather than just flagging mistakes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents AIRS, an ambient-intelligence framework for home rehabilitation after total knee replacement. The framework combines smartphone-based real-time 3D reconstruction of the environment, user localization and navigation, avatar-based privacy-preserving visualization, and vision-language-model (VLM) feedback. The evaluation is based on 263 videos of 43 exercises, all performed by an expert physical therapist, with error detection via DTW-aligned frames and VLM scoring of correction suggestions. The authors report an 89% error-detection rate for DTW-selected single-camera frames and conclude that GPT-4 Vision substantially outperforms open-source VLMs in matching therapist ground-truth corrections.

Significance. If the framework worked as claimed, it would be a useful integrated proof-of-concept for smartphone-based, AI-assisted home rehabilitation: it combines many components (3D reconstruction, navigation, avatar anonymization, VLM feedback) in one pipeline, includes accessibility considerations, and provides a substantial dataset and code release. The paper's strengths are its breadth of integration, the explicit attention to privacy and AI Act compliance, and the attempt to evaluate both frame-level error visibility and VLM output quality. However, the two headline quantitative claims are not yet established: the 89% detection figure is obtained in a same-performer setting, and the VLM comparison uses model-based judges that overlap with the tested systems. These limitations are central, not peripheral, because the framework's core promise is automatic comparison between a clinical reference video and a patient's home recording.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.1, 3.6.1, and 4.2] The 89% error-detection rate does not support the claimed home-use scenario because all 'patient' and 'home' videos were performed by the same expert physical therapist (Section 3.1), and Section 3.6.1 explicitly states that 'the player is the same on both videos, so no additional matching is necessary.' In the actual AIRS workflow, the home user is a different person from the therapist in the reference video; DTW on raw joint-angle or SKEL time series and MSE/MAE-based frame selection do not normalize for body proportions, segment lengths, or joint ranges. The avatar body matching described in Section 3.2 could in principle provide cross-subject normalization, but the evaluation never uses it for matching between different people. A cross-subject experiment, or a clear re-scoping of the 89% claim to a 'same-performer proof-of-concept,' is required before the framework's core promise can be considered supported.
  2. [Section 4.3, Tables 1 and 2] The VLM feedback results are partly self-referential: GPT-4 Vision is one of the evaluated models and is also the judge that decides whether outputs are semantically equivalent to the ground truth (Section 4.3), which can inflate its own score. The embedding-based similarity metric uses LLaMA3-8B embeddings, another model, and the 15-video subset was deliberately selected for high error counts. Reported percentages (e.g., the 60% hit rate and the 'significant margin' in Table 2) are presented without confidence intervals, inter-annotator agreement, or an independent human baseline. The claim that GPT-4 Vision leads by a significant margin should be re-evaluated with human raters or with a judge model that is not among the compared systems.
  3. [Section 4.2] The 'ratio of detected errors is as high as 89%' is based on two reviewers who inspected DTW-selected frames, but the paper reports only the raw agreement count (245 agreed, 18 consensus) and does not report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa), a confidence interval for the 89% proportion, or the annotation criteria used to decide whether an error is visible. Without these details, the headline detection rate is not statistically grounded; the authors should provide the full confusion-style breakdown and a pre-specified annotation protocol.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Section 3.6.3] The limitations discussion acknowledges VLM inconsistency and TKR-specific generalization, but it does not address the cross-subject matching problem, which is more fundamental than a future-work item. Moreover, the VLM evaluation lacks a comparison against simpler baselines (e.g., random frame selection or an always-choose-the-most-frequent-error baseline), so it is unclear how much of the reported performance is attributable to DTW-based frame selection and prompt design rather than to the VLMs themselves. Adding such baselines and a human-judged sample would substantially strengthen the central claims.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] There are typos such as 'excercise' and 'resepctively'; please proofread the manuscript thoroughly.
  2. [Section 6] The 'Conclusion and Outlook' section is empty in the submitted text; either fill it with a substantive conclusion or remove the heading.
  3. [Section 3.4.2] The text ends with an isolated 'm' ('Supplementary Materials.m'), which appears to be a stray character from a missing file extension.
  4. [Section 3.4.1] 'minimal ellipsis' should be 'minimal ellipse'.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains 'an excercise at home' and does not clearly describe what the left and right images show; please revise for clarity.
  6. [Tables 1 and 2] The tables are referenced but the captions are sparse, and abbreviations such as SMPL, EL, and BL are not defined in the captions; please add fuller captions and note the sample size in each cell.
  7. [Supplementary Materials] The paper repeatedly refers to Supplementary Materials for implementation details, but the arXiv version does not include them; this makes several reproducibility-related claims unverifiable. Please provide the supplementary material or clearly state where it can be accessed.
  8. [References] Reference formatting is inconsistent (e.g., 'et al.' vs. 'et. al.'), and some entries mix arXiv identifiers into the title or URL fields; please unify the bibliography style.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One VLM evaluation is self-referential: GPT-4 Vision judges whether GPT-4 Vision's own outputs match ground truth; the DTW/89% result and the LLaMA3 embedding ranking are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, 'Testing Vision Language Models' (Table 1); metric defined in Section 3.6.3]
    "We used GPT-4 Vision to compare the instructions generated by the different VLMs. We used the instruction received from GPT-4 Vision as input together with the ground truth of the expert and asked if their meanings were the same."

    Section 3.6.3 defines semantic similarity accuracy as a judgment 'according to a VLM model', and the adjudicating VLM chosen here is GPT-4 Vision, one of the models whose outputs are being scored. Therefore, for GPT-4, the reported 'semantic match' percentage is not an independent measurement: the same model produces the correction and then decides whether its own correction matches the therapist's ground truth. Any self-preference, leniency, or systematic bias of GPT-4 toward its own phrasing is counted as correctness, so this part of the evaluation reduces to self-judgment.

full rationale

The framework's central numerical claims do not reduce to fitted inputs. The 89% error-detection rate is a human-reviewed evaluation of DTW-selected frames (Section 4.2), not a quantity implied by the selection rule: two reviewers independently checked whether the selected frame showed the error, so the result is an empirical finding about the pose-estimation and frame-selection pipeline. The same-performer setup noted in Sections 3.1 and 3.6.1 ('the player is the same on both videos, so no additional matching is necessary') is a real generalization limitation for cross-subject home use, but it is an external-validity concern, not a circular derivation. The Table 2 ranking of GPT-4 Vision as 'leading by a significant margin' is computed with LLaMA3-8B embeddings, an encoder distinct from the models being ranked, and additional VLM judges also disagree among themselves. The one genuine circularity is the semantic-match evaluation in Table 1, where GPT-4 Vision serves as both the tested system and the judge of whether its own output matches the expert ground truth. This inflates or at least cannot independently certify GPT-4's reported semantic-match percentages. Self-citations to Baranyi et al. (2022) provide the dataset and the navigation baseline, but they are not used as a load-bearing proof of a new result, so they do not materially raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an integration and a small evaluation rather than a derivation, so there are no fitted free parameters and no invented entities. The burden sits in domain assumptions about pose-estimation accuracy, DTW alignment, reviewer ground truth, model-based VLM scoring, and dataset representativeness, each of which is load-bearing for the reported percentages.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-camera 3D pose estimation (MeTRAbs, HybrIK-X + SKEL) yields skeleton accuracy sufficient for error detection and corrective feedback.
    Invoked in Sections 3.6.1 and 4.2; no independent validation on home conditions, occlusions, or varied body shapes.
  • domain assumption Dynamic time warping on joint-angle or SKEL time series synchronizes clinic and home exercise videos.
    Section 3.6.1; only tested with the same person on both videos.
  • domain assumption The two reviewers' judgments (245 agreements plus 18 consensus) constitute valid ground truth for error presence in DTW-selected frames.
    Section 4.2; reviewers may be the authors and know the expected error labels, and reliability is unquantified.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 Vision's semantic-equality rating and LLaMA3-8B embedding cosine similarity measure the quality of corrective instructions.
    Section 4.3; model-based proxy metrics replace therapist-rated outcomes.
  • domain assumption The 263-video Emineo dataset, recorded with the therapist acting as the patient, represents home rehabilitation conditions.
    Section 3.1; real-patient homes, body shapes, and impairments are untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Framework for Ambient Intelligence in Rehabilitation Assistance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26WBGR3C

@misc{pith2026250708624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Framework for Ambient Intelligence in Rehabilitation Assistance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26WBGR3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08624}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces the Ambient Intelligence Rehabilitation Support (AIRS) framework, an advanced artificial intelligence-based solution tailored for home rehabilitation environments. AIRS integrates cutting-edge technologies, including Real-Time 3D Reconstruction (RT-3DR), intelligent navigation, and large Vision-Language Models (VLMs), to create a comprehensive system for machine-guided physical rehabilitation. The general AIRS framework is demonstrated in rehabilitation scenarios following total knee replacement (TKR), utilizing a database of 263 video recordings for evaluation. A smartphone is employed within AIRS to perform RT-3DR of living spaces and has a body-matched avatar to provide visual feedback about the excercise. This avatar is necessary in (a) optimizing exercise configurations, including camera placement, patient positioning, and initial poses, and (b) addressing privacy concerns and promoting compliance with the AI Act. The system guides users through the recording process to ensure the collection of properly recorded videos. AIRS employs two feedback mechanisms: (i) visual 3D feedback, enabling direct comparisons between prerecorded clinical exercises and patient home recordings and (ii) VLM-generated feedback, providing detailed explanations and corrections for exercise errors. The framework also supports people with visual and hearing impairments. It also features a modular design that can be adapted to broader rehabilitation contexts. AIRS software components are available for further use and customization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot := field num.names 'numnames := numnames 'format.num.names := format.num.names na...

  2. [2]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year eprint archive archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.sta...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION n.separate 't := "" #0 'numnames := t empty not t #-1 #1 subs...

  4. [4]

    Baranyi G, et. al. (2022) AI technologies for machine supervision and help in a rehabilitation scenario. Multimod Techn and Interact 6(7)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    (2020) Monocular expressive body regression through body-driven attention

    Choutas V, et al. (2020) Monocular expressive body regression through body-driven attention. In: Eur. Conf. on Comp. Vis., Springer, pp 20--40

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    (2021) Ambient assisted living: A review of technologies, methodologies and future perspectives for healthy aging of population

    Cicirelli G, et al. (2021) Ambient assisted living: A review of technologies, methodologies and future perspectives for healthy aging of population. Sensors 21(10):3549

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    (2018) Superpoint: S elf-supervised interest point detection and description

    DeTone D, et al. (2018) Superpoint: S elf-supervised interest point detection and description. In: Conf. on Comp. Vis. Pattern Rec., pp 224--236

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    (2023) Ai-based next-generation sensors for enhanced rehabilitation monitoring and analysis

    Han X, et al. (2023) Ai-based next-generation sensors for enhanced rehabilitation monitoring and analysis. Measurement 223:113758

    work page 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    (2021) A portable smart fitness suite for real-time exercise monitoring and posture correction

    Hannan A, et al. (2021) A portable smart fitness suite for real-time exercise monitoring and posture correction. Sensors 21(19)

    2021

  2. [10]

    (2020) A collaborative healthcare framework for shared healthcare plan with ambient intelligence

    Javed AR, et al. (2020) A collaborative healthcare framework for shared healthcare plan with ambient intelligence. Human-Centr Comp Inf Sci 10(1):40

    2020

  3. [11]

    (2023) From skin to skeleton: T owards biomechanically accurate 3 D digital humans

    Keller M, et al. (2023) From skin to skeleton: T owards biomechanically accurate 3 D digital humans. ACM Tr Graphics 42(6):1--12

    2023

  4. [12]

    (2023) 3 D G aussian S platting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Kerbl B, et al. (2023) 3 D G aussian S platting for real-time radiance field rendering. arxiv:2308.04079

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J Amb Int Hum Comp 11(4):1451--1458

    Kim JC, Chung K (2020) Neural-network based adaptive context prediction model for ambient intelligence. J Amb Int Hum Comp 11(4):1451--1458

    2020

  6. [14]

    (2025) Action assessment in rehabilitation: Leveraging machine learning and vision-based analysis

    Kryeem A, et al. (2025) Action assessment in rehabilitation: Leveraging machine learning and vision-based analysis. Comp Vis Image Understanding 251:104228

    2025

  7. [15]

    (2023 a ) Hybrik- x : H ybrid analytical-neural inverse kinematics for whole-body mesh recovery

    Li J, et al. (2023 a ) Hybrik- x : H ybrid analytical-neural inverse kinematics for whole-body mesh recovery. arXiv:230405690

    2023

  8. [16]

    (2023 b ) NIKI : N eural inverse kinematics with invertible neural networks for 3d human pose and shape estimation

    Li J, et al. (2023 b ) NIKI : N eural inverse kinematics with invertible neural networks for 3d human pose and shape estimation. In: Conf. on Comp. Vis. Pattern Rec., pp 12933--12942

    2023

  9. [17]

    (2023) Lightglue: L ocal feature matching at light speed

    Lindenberger P, et al. (2023) Lightglue: L ocal feature matching at light speed. In: Int. Conf. Comp. Vis., pp 17627--17638

    2023

  10. [18]

    (2015) SMPL : A skinned multi-person linear model

    Loper M, et al. (2015) SMPL : A skinned multi-person linear model. ACM Tr Graphics 34(6):248:1--16

    2015

  11. [19]

    Communications of the ACM 65(1):99--106

    Mildenhall B, Srinivasan PP, Tancik M, et al (2021) Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM 65(1):99--106

    2021

  12. [20]

    Sensors 18(11):3671

    Oliver M, Teruel MA, Molina JP, et al (2018) Ambient intelligence environment for home cognitive telerehabilitation. Sensors 18(11):3671

    2018

  13. [21]

    (2024) A biologically inspired movement recognition system with spiking neural networks for ambient assisted living applications

    Passias A, et al. (2024) A biologically inspired movement recognition system with spiking neural networks for ambient assisted living applications. Biomimetics 9(5):296

    2024

  14. [22]

    In: Digital Health

    Patel D, Castro H (2025) Hospital to home: B ridging the gap with personalized medicine. In: Digital Health. Elsevier, p 143--169

    2025

  15. [23]

    ://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00714, 2408.00714

    Ravi N, Gabeur V, Hu YT, et al (2024) Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. ://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00714, 2408.00714

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    (2015) A multi-agent system in ambient intelligence for the physical rehabilitation of older people

    Roda C, et al. (2015) A multi-agent system in ambient intelligence for the physical rehabilitation of older people. Trends in Pract App Agents, Multi-Agent Syst Sustain pp 113--123

    2015

  17. [25]

    (2019) From coarse to fine: R obust hierarchical localization at large scale

    Sarlin PE, et al. (2019) From coarse to fine: R obust hierarchical localization at large scale. In: Conf. Comp. Vis. Pattern Rec., pp 12716--12725

    2019

  18. [26]

    In: Conf

    Schonberger JL, Frahm JM (2016) Structure-from-motion revisited. In: Conf. Comp. Vis. Pattern Rec., pp 4104--4113

    2016

  19. [27]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    Szot A, Clegg A, Undersander E, et al (2021) Habitat 2.0: Training home assistants to rearrange their habitat. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2021

  20. [28]

    (2022) Learning 3d human pose estimation from dozens of datasets using a geometry-aware autoencoder to bridge between skeleton formats

    Sárándi I, et al. (2022) Learning 3d human pose estimation from dozens of datasets using a geometry-aware autoencoder to bridge between skeleton formats. arxiv:2212.14474

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    (2023) Ne RFS tudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development

    Tancik M, et al. (2023) Ne RFS tudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. In: ACM SIGGRAPH, pp 1 -- 12

    2023

  22. [30]

    (2022) Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Wei J, et al. (2022) Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Adv Neur Inf Proc Syst 35:24824--24837

    2022

  23. [31]

    (2024) Embodied SAM : O nline segment any 3d thing in real time

    Xu X, et al. (2024) Embodied SAM : O nline segment any 3d thing in real time. arXiv:240811811

    2024

  24. [32]

    (2023) Ne RFB ridge: B ringing real-time, online neural radiance field training to robotics

    Yu J, et al. (2023) Ne RFB ridge: B ringing real-time, online neural radiance field training to robotics. arXiv:230509761

    2023

  25. [33]

    (2024 a ) Benchmarking multi-image understanding in vision and language models: P erception, knowledge, reasoning, and multi-hop reasoning

    Zhao B, et al. (2024 a ) Benchmarking multi-image understanding in vision and language models: P erception, knowledge, reasoning, and multi-hop reasoning. arXiv:240612742

    2024

  26. [34]

    (2024 b ) A smartphone application-based remote rehabilitation system for post-total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial

    Zhao R, et al. (2024 b ) A smartphone application-based remote rehabilitation system for post-total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 39(3):575--581

    2024

  27. [35]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.labe...

  28. [36]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

  29. [37]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION output.doi doi empty skip "doi:" doi * "" * output if FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "] " * if FUNCTION format....

  30. [38]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTI...

  31. [39]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTI...

  32. [40]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url doi volume year archivePrefix primaryClass eid adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS o...

  33. [41]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  34. [42]

    Available from:

    ENTRY address assignee author booktitle chapter cartographer day edition editor howpublished institution inventor journal key keywords month note number organization pages part publisher school series title type volume word year eprint doi url lastchecked updated archive archi...

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.