Evaluation of a new geriatric foot versus the Solid Ankle Cushion Heel foot for low-activity amputees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is always a challenge to rehabilitate geriatric amputees to perform self-care skills at home with limited ambulation. A new geriatric foot (with a lower effective foot length) has been specifically designed to reduce residual limb stress and to ease the step completion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefit of a new geriatric foot versus a Solid Ankle Cushion Heel foot for low-activity persons with transtibial amputation. STUDY DESIGN: Crossover study. METHODS: A total of 12 patients were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: 2-min walking test, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 questionnaire and pressure socket measurements. RESULTS: The geriatric foot allows for greater patient satisfaction. The maximal pressure was significantly lower in the proximal anterior stump area. No statistical differences were obtained from the 2-min walking test. CONCLUSION: A geriatric foot designed with a low effective foot length improves the satisfaction and reduces proximal anterior socket pressures for poor-performing persons with transtibial amputation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The development and evaluation of feet specifically designed for geriatric persons with transtibial amputation could improve their specific requirements and satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 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".