Effect of a shock-absorbing pylon on transmission of heel strike forces during the gait of people with unilateral trans-tibial amputations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that walking with a shock-absorbing pylon (SAP) decreases the peak magnitude and frequency content of the heel-strike-initiated shock wave transmitted to the stump. The secondary hypotheses were that walking with a SAP decreases the heel-strike transient force between the ground and the foot and increases function as measured by walking velocity and subjective assessments. Seven people with unilateral trans-tibial amputations walked at self-selected speeds without and with a SAP. As the primary outcome measure, accelerometers were used mounted proximally and distally along the prosthetic pylon to measure the transmitted shock wave. Secondary measures included ground reaction forces from a force plate, a ten-minute walking test to determine walking speed and a questionnaire to evaluate gait function and subjective preference. The SAP provided no significant shock absorption as indicated by either the mean peak proximal accelerations of 3.19 g and 2.82 g (p = 0.28) without and with the SAP respectively or the mean difference between the peak proximal and distal accelerometers, 0.16 g and 0.19 g (p = 0.58). No significant change in the frequency content was found. Variances were high. There were no significant differences noted in the secondary measures. Although this study failed to identify any statistically significant effects due to the SAP, the magnitude and variance of the data will permit an accurate estimation of the appropriate sample size for future studies required to determine the efficacy of SAPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".