Kinematic and Kinetic Variations of Below-Knee Amputee Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many studies have been carried out on prosthetic gait, the main parameters of below-knee amputee (BKA) gait are still poorly understood. The majority of the gait studies of amputees have focused on the temporal and distance variables, whereas kinetics of the gait may reveal more important information. The purpose of this study was to assess the prosthetic gait of transtibial amputees and compare it with the findings of other studies on BKA and able-bodied persons. Five male unilateral traumatic BKA between the ages of 32 and 77 years were tested. Ground reaction force data were combined with simultaneously recorded and subsequently digitized video data of coordinate motion to calculate joint kinetics data. The following variables were compared within the group and with those of nonamputees: linear velocity, relative angles, net moment, power, and work at the hip, knee, and ankle joints. The results of this study indicated that BKA perform a higher than normal hip extension, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion of the unaffected side, whereas having more than normal hip and knee flexion during stance on the affected side. It was also shown that amputees tend to generate little power during push-off of the prosthetic side. Major findings of this study confirmed that BKA perform an asymmetrical gait that is different from those of normal population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".