Ambulation monitoring of transtibial amputation subjects with patient activity monitor versus pedometer
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
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.
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 it