MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052017144 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2006.03.0025

Dynamic biomechanical model for assessing and monitoring robot-assisted upper-limb therapy

2007· article· en· W2052017144 on OpenAlexafffund
Hussein A. Abdullah, Cole Tarry, Rahul Datta, Gauri S. Mittal, Mohamed Abderrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElbowRobotTorqueInverse dynamicsBiomechanicsSimulationWristExoskeletonComputer scienceForearmTrajectoryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceKinematicsPhysical therapyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the design, validation, and application of a dynamic biomechanical model that assesses and monitors trajectory, position, orientation, force, and torque generated by upper-limb (UL) movement during robot-assisted therapy. The model consists of two links that represent the upper arm and forearm, with 5 degrees of freedom (DOF) for the shoulder and elbow joints. The model is a useful tool for enhancing the functionality of poststroke robot-assisted UL therapy. The individualized inertial segment parameters were based on anthropometric measurements. The model performed inverse dynamic analysis of UL movements to calculate reaction forces and moments acting about the 3-DOF shoulder and 2-DOF elbow joints. Real-time fused biofeedback of a 6-DOF force sensor and three-dimensional (3-D) pose sensors supported the model validation and application. The force sensor was mounted between the robot manipulator and the subject's wrist, while the 3-D pose sensors were fixed at specific positions on the subject's UL segments. The model input and output parameters were stored in the subject's database, which is part of the rehabilitation information system. We assigned 20 nondisabled subjects three different therapy exercises to test and validate the biomechanical model. We found that when the biomechanical model is taught an exercise, it can accurately predict a subject's actual UL joint angles and torques and confirm that the exercise is isolating the desired movement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and DevelopmentSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207