MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075453948 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2012.2202250

Design and Evaluation of an Orthotic Knee-Extension Assist

2012· article· en· W2075453948 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander N. Spring, Jonathan Kofman, Edward D. Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleExtension (predicate logic)Knee flexionKnee JointComputer scienceMoment (physics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationRange of motionModular designMedicineOrthodonticsPhysical therapySurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with quadriceps muscle weakness often have difficulty generating the knee-extension moments required to complete common mobility tasks. A new device that provides knee-extension moments through a range of knee angles was designed to help individuals perform stand-to-sit and sit-to-stand tasks. The novel knee-extension assist (KEA) was designed as a modular component to be incorporated into existing knee-ankle-foot orthoses or used in a knee orthosis. During stand-to-sit, a set of springs is loaded as the knee flexes under bodyweight and the KEA thus provides a knee-extension moment that aids in achieving a smoothly controlled knee flexion. The springs can be locked in place at the end of knee flexion to prevent unwanted knee extension while the user is seated. The entire knee extension assist can be disengaged to allow free joint motion anytime the affected leg is unloaded. During sit-to-stand, the KEA assists knee extension by returning the energy stored in the springs as an extension moment. In mechanical testing of a prototype of the new KEA, a mean maximum extension moment of 42.9 ± 0.46 Nm was provided by the device during flexion and 28.4 ± 0.28 Nm during extension. A biomechanical evaluation with two able-bodied individuals demonstrated the effectiveness of the KEA in successfully assisting stand-to-sit and sit-to-stand tasks. During stand-to-sit, the KEA provided 82% and 75% of the total (muscle and KEA) knee-extension moment required by the braced leg for the task for the two subjects, respectively; and during sit-to-stand, the KEA provided 56% and 50% of the total knee-extension moment for the two subjects, respectively. This KEA performance exceeded 50% knee-extension moment assistance for a 70 kg person.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207