Effects of flat prosthetic foot rocker section on balance and mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that the effective rocker shape of the physiologic ankle-foot system during standing and fore-aft swaying is much flatter than that used during walking, which indicates a more stable base of support for the standing/swaying activity. Previous work suggests that flat regions within the effective rocker shapes of prosthetic ankle-foot systems could provide enhanced stability for standing balance tasks. An experimental prosthetic foot was altered to provide three different flat region lengths within its effective rocker shape. It was hypothesized that longer flat regions of the effective rocker shape would lead to improved standing balance outcomes and reduced walking performance for unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. However, no significant changes were seen in the balance and mobility outcomes of 12 unilateral transtibial prosthesis users when using the three prosthetic foot conditions. Subjects in the study significantly preferred prosthetic feet with relatively low to moderate flat regions over those with long flat regions. All the subjects without loss of light touch or vibratory sensation selected the prosthetic foot with the shortest flat region. More work is needed to investigate the effects of prosthetic foot properties on balance and mobility of prosthesis users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".