Evaluation of the JACO robotic arm: Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it