Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics
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
PURPOSE: To measure consumer satisfaction with upper limb prosthetics and provide an enumerated list of design priorities for future developments. METHODS: A self-administered, anonymous survey collected information on participant demographics, history of and goals for prosthesis use, satisfaction, and design priorities. The questionnaire was available online and in paper format and was distributed through healthcare providers, community support groups, and one prosthesis manufacturer; 242 participants of all ages and levels of upper limb absence completed the survey. RESULTS: Rates of rejection for myoelectric hands, passive hands, and body-powered hooks were 39%, 53%, and 50%, respectively. Prosthesis wearers were generally satisfied with their devices while prosthesis rejecters were dissatisfied. Reduced prosthesis weight emerged as the highest priority design concern of consumers. Lower cost ranked within the top five design priorities for adult wearers of all device types. Life-like appearance is a priority for passive/cosmetic prostheses, while improved harness comfort, wrist movement, grip control and strength are required for body-powered devices. Glove durability, lack of sensory feedback, and poor dexterity were also identified as design priorities for electric devices. CONCLUSIONS: Design priorities reflect consumer goals for prosthesis use and vary depending on the type of prosthesis used and age. Future design efforts should focus on the development of more light-weight, comfortable prostheses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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