Evaluation of an instrument-assisted dynamic prosthetic alignment technique for individuals with transtibial amputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A prosthesis that is not optimally aligned can adversely influence the rehabilitation and health of the amputee. Very few studies to date evaluate the effectiveness and utility of instrument-assisted alignment techniques in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare an instrument-assisted dynamic alignment technique (Compas(™)) to conventional methods. STUDY DESIGN: In a crossover study design, dynamic prosthetic alignments were provided to nine individuals with unilateral transtibial amputations to compare conventional and instrument-assisted alignment techniques. METHODS: The instrument-assisted technique involved a commercially available force and torque sensing dynamic alignment system (Compas). Cadence, pelvic accelerations, and socket moments were assessed. A custom questionnaire was used to gather user perceptions. RESULTS: No differences between alignment techniques were found in global gait measures including cadence and pelvic accelerations. No significant alignment differences were achieved by examination of angular changes between the socket and foot; however, significantly higher below-the-socket moments were found with the instrument-assisted technique. From the questionnaire, six amputees had no preference, while three preferred the conventional alignment. CONCLUSION: The use of Compas appears to produce similar alignment results as conventional techniques, although with slightly higher moments at the socket. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides new information about the clinical utilization of instrument-assisted prosthetic alignment techniques for individuals with transtibial amputation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".