MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in Ground Reaction Forces during Prosthetic Training of People with Transfemoral Amputations: A Pilot Study

2000· article· en· W2026377315 on OpenAlexaff
Christiane Gauthier-Gagnon, Denis Gravel, Hélène St-Amand, C. Murie, Michel Goyette

Bibliographic record

VenueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Physiotherapy AssociationQuebec Rehabilitation Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround reaction forceProsthesisGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationForce platformTraining (meteorology)MedicineAmputationPhysical therapyOrthodonticsSurgeryPhysicsKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in floor reaction forces over the prosthesis during stance and gait throughout prosthetic training. Fifteen transfemoral amputation patients (mean age: 62 ± 13 years) were evaluated during prosthetic training. As the patients were standing and walking in parallel bars at free speed, ground reaction forces were measured with a force plate and gait velocity was measured using two photocells. Pretraining and posttraining changes of average peak forces were evaluated by paired t-tests (p < 0.05). In the training period, weightbearing over the prosthesis during standing increased (p < 0.05) and significant decreases (p < 0.05) were observed in the nonamputated limb. From initial to discharge evaluation, gait velocity and vertical ground reaction forces increased significantly. Changes in vertical forces were minimal (< 5%) for three subjects, and four subjects had lower values at the end of training. No significant changes could be detected in the anteroposterior and mediolateral ground reaction forces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPO Journal of Prosthetics and OrthoticsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207