Evaluation of the JACO robotic arm: Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many activities of daily living, such as picking up glasses, holding a fork or opening a door, which most people do without thinking, can become insurmountable for people who have upper extremity disabilities. The alternative to asking for human help is to use some assistive devices to compensate their loss of mobility; however, many of those devices are limited in terms of functionality. Robotics may provide a better approach for the development of assistive devices, by allowing greater functionality. In this paper, we present results of a study (n=31) which objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of a new joystick-controlled seven-degree of freedom robotic manipulator and assess its potential economic benefits. Results show that JACO is easy to use as the majority of the participants were able to accomplish the testing tasks on their first attempt. The economic model results inferred that the use of the JACO arm system could potentially reduce caregiving time by 41%. These study results are expected to provide valuable data for interested parties, such as individuals with disabilities, their family or caregivers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".