Design and quantitative evaluation of a stance-phase controlled prosthetic knee joint for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to demonstrate a theoretical basis for the design of a stance-phase controlled paediatric prosthetic knee joint, clinically test prototypes of the knee, and use a questionnaire to evaluate its efficacy. Biomechanical models were used to analyze the stance-phase control characteristics of the proposed knee, and those of three other commonly prescribed paediatric knee joint mechanisms, which were also the conventional knee joints used by the six participants of this study (mean age 10.8 years). A questionnaire pertaining to stance-phase control was designed and administered twice to each child; once for the evaluation of the prototype knee joint and once for the conventional knee joint. Stance-phase modeling results indicated decreased zones of instability for the new knee as compared to other paediatric knee joints. Questionnaire results revealed a decrease in the frequency of falls with the prototype compared to other knees, especially in highly active children. The children also reported worrying less about the knee collapsing during walking. No differences were evident for stance-phase stability during running, walking on uneven terrain, ambulating up and down stairs and inclines, fatigue, and types of activities performed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".