Development of a patient-specific anatomical foot model from structured light scan data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of anatomically accurate finite element (FE) models of the human foot in research studies has increased rapidly in recent years. Uses for FE foot models include advancing knowledge of orthotic design, shoe design, ankle-foot orthoses, pathomechanics, locomotion, plantar pressure, tissue mechanics, plantar fasciitis, joint stress and surgical interventions. Similar applications but for clinical use on a per-patient basis would also be on the rise if it were not for the high costs associated with developing patient-specific anatomical foot models. High costs arise primarily from the expense and challenges of acquiring anatomical data via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) and reconstructing the three-dimensional models. The proposed solution morphs detailed anatomy from skin surface geometry and anatomical landmarks of a generic foot model (developed from CT or MRI) to surface geometry and anatomical landmarks acquired from an inexpensive structured light scan of a foot. The method yields a patient-specific anatomical foot model at a fraction of the cost of standard methods. Average error for bone surfaces was 2.53 mm for the six experiments completed. Highest accuracy occurred in the mid-foot and lowest in the forefoot due to the small, irregular bones of the toes. The method must be validated in the intended application to determine if the resulting errors are acceptable.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it