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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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