Ambulation monitoring of transtibial amputation subjects with patient activity monitor versus pedometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study aimed to compare the accuracy of step count and ambulation distance determined with the Yamax Digi-Walker SW-700 pedometer (DW) and the Ossur patient activity monitor (PAM) in 20 transtibial amputation subjects who were functioning at the K3 Medicare Functional Classification Level. Subjects completed four simulated household tasks in an apartment setup and a gymnasium walking course designed to simulate outdoor walking without the presence of environmental barriers or varied terrain. The mean step count accuracy of the DW and the PAM was equivalent for both the household activity (75.3% vs 70.6%) and the walking course (93.8% vs 94.0%). The mean distance measurement accuracy was better with the DW than with the PAM (household activity: 72.8% vs 0%, walking course: 92.5% vs 86.3%; p < 0.05). With acceptable step count accuracy, both devices are appropriate for assessing relatively continuous ambulation. The DW may be preferred for its more accurate distance measurements. Neither device is ideal for monitoring in-home ambulation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".