MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141596924 · doi:10.1109/aim.2007.4412446

MEDARM: a rehabilitation robot with 5DOF at the shoulder complex

2007· article· en· W2141596924 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Ball, Ian E. Brown, Stephen H. Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkspaceShoulder girdleRobotElbowPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationExoskeletonComputer scienceShoulder jointUpper limbRehabilitation roboticsInertiaSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligencePhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key approach for reducing motor impairment and regaining independence after stroke is frequent and repetitive functional training. A number of robotic devices have been developed to assist therapists with the labourious task of providing treatment. Although robotic technology is showing significant potential, its effectiveness for upper limb rehabilitation is limited in part by the inability to make functional reaching movements. A major contributor to this problem is that current robots do not replicate motion of the shoulder girdle despite the fact that the shoulder girdle plays a critical role in stabilizing and orienting the upper limb during activities of daily living. To address this issue, a new adjustable robotic exoskeleton called MEDARM is proposed for motor rehabilitation of the shoulder complex. MEDARM provides independent control of six degrees of freedom (DOF) of the upper limb: two at the sternoclavicular joint, three at the glenohumeral joint and one at the elbow. Its joint axes are optimally arranged to mimic the natural upper- limb workspace while avoiding singular configurations and while maximizing manipulability. This mechanism also permits reduction to planar shoulder/elbow motion in any plane by locking all but the last two joints. Electric motors actuate the joint using a combination of cable and belt transmissions designed to maximize the power-to-weight ratio of the robot while maintaining backdriveability and minimizing inertia. Thus, the robot can provide any level of movement assistance and gravity compensation. This paper describes the proposed technical design for MEDARM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations188
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207