MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The importance of position and path repeatability on force at the knee during six-DOF joint motion

2009· article· en· W2052148287 on OpenAlexafffund
Shon P. Darcy, Jorge E. Gil, Savio L‐Y. Woo, Richard E. Debski

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRepeatabilityPosition (finance)KinematicsControl theory (sociology)Knee JointOrientation (vector space)TrajectoryBiomechanicsComputer scienceSimulationBiomedical engineeringMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAnatomyMedicineSurgeryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical devices, such as robotic manipulators have been designed to measure joint and ligament function because of their ability to position a diarthrodial joint in six degrees-of-freedom with fidelity. However, the precision and performance of these testing devices vary. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of systematic errors in position and path repeatability of two high-payload robotic manipulators (Manipulators 1 and 2) on the resultant forces at the knee. Using a porcine knee, the position and path repeatability of these manipulators were determined during passive flexion-extension with a coordinate measuring machine. The position repeatability of Manipulator 1 was 0.3 mm in position and 0.2 degrees in orientation while Manipulator 2 had a better position repeatability of 0.1 mm in position and 0.1 degrees in orientation throughout the range of positions examined. The corresponding variability in the resultant force at the knee for these assigned positions was 32+/-33 N for Manipulator 1 and 4+/-1 N for Manipulator 2. Furthermore, the repeatability of the trajectory of each manipulator while moving between assigned positions (path repeatability) was 0.8 mm for Manipulator 1 while the path repeatability for Manipulator 2 was improved (0.1 mm). These path discrepancies produced variability in the resultant force at the knee of 44+/-24 and 21+/-8 N, respectively, for Manipulators 1 and 2 primarily due to contact between the articular surfaces of the tibia and femur. Therefore, improved position and path repeatability yields lower variability in the resultant forces at the knee. Although position repeatability has been the most common criteria for evaluating biomechanical testing devices, the current study has clearly demonstrated that path repeatability can have an even larger effect on the variability in resultant force at the knee. Consequently, the repeatability of the path followed by the joint throughout its prescribed trajectory is as important as the repeatability of the joint at reaching positions making up its trajectory, particularly when joint contact occurs.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207