fetching data ...

POS0646-HPR (2026)
COMPARISON OF MOBILE-BASED AND SUPERVISED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PERSONALIZED EXERCISE PROGRAMS IN JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Keywords: Telemedicine, Digital health, And measuring health, Physical therapy, Physiotherapy, And Physical Activity, Artificial Intelligence
A. Yekdaneh1, N. Arman2, N. Aktay Ayaz3
1Fenerbahçe University, Vocational School of Health Services, Physiotherapy English Program, Istanbul, Türkiye
2Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Istanbul, Türkiye
3Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatric Rheumatology, Istanbul, Türkiye

Background: Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) requires highly individualized exercise interventions due to its fluctuating disease course and patient-specific functional impacts [1]. While personalized exercise is crucial, traditional supervised delivery faces scalability and long-term adherence challenges [2]). Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a transformative approach by automating personalized exercise prescription, potentially enhancing patient engagement, goal attainment, and physical activity levels [3]. However, the comparative effectiveness of AI-driven mobile platforms versus supervised AI-integrated clinical settings remains under-explored.


Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of a data-driven, AI-based personalized mobile exercise program and a supervised personalized exercise program on functional capacity, physical fitness, gait, and physical activity in adolescents with JIA.


Methods: A total of 54 adolescents with JIA (aged 12-18 years) were randomized into two groups: MobileEX (asynchronous AI-personalized exercise via Pedi@ctivity mobile app) and SuperEX (two supervised clinical and one synchronous online session weekly). The study followed a sequential design: a 3-month baseline monitoring using smartwatches, followed by a 12-week AI-driven exercise intervention (40-45 min/session, 3 times/week). The Pedi@ctivity AI model generated personalized exercise prescriptions for both groups. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (T0), pre (T1), and post-exercise (T2). Functional capacity was measured via 6-Minute Walking Test (6MWT), and 10-Stair Climb Test (10SCT) and Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run-PACER Test. Physical fitness was assessed using the FitnessGram® Physical Activity Battery (Curl-up-CT, Trunk Lift-TLT, Push-up-PT, Back Saver and Reach-BSRT tests). Gait parameters were evaluated with Digitsole Pro® Smart Insole System. Functional capasity and physical fitness test results were categorized into health zones (Needs Improvement-Health Risk, Needs Improvement, and Healthy Fitness Zone) based on age-matched reference values. Daily physical activity was monitored via smartwatches integrated with the Pedi@ctivity System. Statistical analysis utilized Mann-Whitney U for between-group and Friedman/Wilcoxon tests for temporal comparisons. Clinical significance was evaluated using Cohen’s d for within- and between-group effect sizes (0.20 small, 0.50 medium, >0.80 large) and partial eta squared (η 2 ) for ANOVA interaction effects.


Results: Mean ages were 14.22±1.90 for MobileEX and 15.15±2.08 years for SuperEX. For the 6MWT (T1-T2), SuperEX demonstrated a significantly superior improvement compared with MobileEX (p=0.009, d=0.60), showing a large effect size (d=0.94, η 2 =0.18, p<0.001), whereas MobileEX achieved a moderate-to-large effect (d=0.77, η 2 =0.14, p<0.05). A major clinical breakthrough occurred in ‘Healthy Reference Zone’ transitions for 6MWT, surging from 6 to 19 in SuperEX vs. 7 to 8 in MobileEX. Both groups significantly reduced 10SCT times (MobilEX d=-0.55; SuperEX d=-0.45, p<0.05). Additionally, SuperEX showed significant gains in PACER VO 2max (T0–T2) (d=0.47, η 2 =0.04, p<0.05) (Table 1). In physical fitness T0-T2, SuperEX showed superior gains in trunk extansor strenght/flexibility with TLT (d=0.72, η 2 =0.13, p<0.05), in T1-T2 upper extremity strength with PT (d=0.51, η 2 =0.08, p<0.05) and in T0-T2 and T1-T2, flexibility via BSRT (d=0.95, η 2 =0.21, p<0.05) in (Table 2). Categorical analysis revealed prominent clinical shifts particularly in the SuperEX group. For MT, despite 2 participants regressing, 6 participants in SuperEGZ transitioned from ‘At-Risk’ to the ‘Healthy’ category, reflecting a superior clinical impact compared to the 2-participant improvement in MobileEX. In PT, MobileEX saw 4 participants reach the ‘Healthy’ zone vs. 3 in SuperEX. Furthermore, BSRT categories improved for 2 participants in SuperEX and 1 in MobileEX. Gait kinematics improved significantly in both groups for walking speed (p<0.05), Additionally, the MobileEX also enhanced step length and swing phase duration (p<0.05). For walking speed, SuperEX demonstrated a large effect size (d=0.71, η 2 =0.21), while MobileEX showed a small-to-medium effect (d=0.43, η 2 =0.09). Crucially, no significant between-group differences were found in gait parameters (p>0.05). Smartwatch data showed daily step counts increased significantly only in the SuperEX group (p<0.01). Regression analysis confirmed a positive weekly trend for SuperEX, whereas MobileEX exhibited a negative trajectory. These results suggest that supervised AI-integration effectively sustains long-term activity gains, while the mobile-only approach fails to maintain early progress.


Conclusions: Both programs significantly improved functional capacity, physical fitness, and gait in patiants with JIA. SuperEX demonstrated superior gains in functional outcomes and physical activity, while MobileEX proved a non-inferior, scalable alternative for gait and mobility. These results support a flexible care model: supervised exercise remains optimal when feasible, while mobile platforms provide an effective solution to ensure continuity when clinic access is limited. As the first study to compare these AI-delivery methods in JIA, the findings suggest that AI-integrated physiotherapy enhances both clinical effectiveness and accessibility, potentially bridging long-term care gaps and reducing health inequalities.


REFERENCES: [1] Tarakci, E., et al., 2012, Efficacy of a land-based home exercise programme for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A randomized, controlled, single-blind study, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine.

[2] Griffiths, A. J., et al., 2018, The effect of interactive digital interventions on physical activity in people with inflammatory arthritis: A systematic review. Rheumatology International.

[3] Bays, D. K., et al., 2024, A Brief Review of the Efficacy in Artificial Intelligence and Chatbot-Generated Personalized Fitness Regimens, Strength Cond J.


Acknowledgments: NIL.


Disclosure of Interests: None declared.


DOI: annrheumdis-2026-eular.C.301
Keywords: Telemedicine, Digital health, And measuring health, Physical therapy, Physiotherapy, And Physical Activity, Artificial Intelligence
Citation: , volume 85, supplement 1, year 2026, page s812
Session: Poster View I (Poster View)