Biomechanical Differences between Two Exoprosthetic Hip Joint Systems during Level Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown low end-user acceptance of a hip disarticulation style prosthesis and that the limitations of such prostheses, including poor gait pattern, socket discomfort, weight of the prosthesis, loss of mobility, instability and high energy consumption are a contributing factor. This study was initiated to determine if a new style of prosthetic hip joint could help to overcome some of the limitations concerning the gait pattern. The present study analyzed the gait pattern of six hip disarticulation amputee subjects. The objective was to compare two different prosthetic hip joints, both from Otto Bock HealthCare: The new Helix(3D) and the 7E7, which is based on the Canadian model proposed by McLaurin (1954). Kinematics and kinetics were recorded by an optoelectronic camera system with six CCD cameras and two force plates. During weight acceptance, the Helix(3D) extends considerably slower and reaches full extension later than the 7E7. The increased range of pelvic tilt observed with hip disarticulation amputees is significantly reduced (by 5 ± 3 degrees) when using the Helix(3D) Hip Joint. In addition, this system showed increased stance phase knee joint flexion as well as increased maximum swing phase knee flexion angles compared to the 7E7. These motion analysis results show that the Helix(3D) Hip Joint can reduce gait abnormalities compared to the uniplanar design of the 7E7 hip joint.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".