Load on Osseointegrated Fixation of a Transfemoral Amputee during a Fall
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
Mitigation of fall-related injuries for populations of transfemoral amputees fitted with a socket or an osseointegrated fixation is challenging. Wearing a protective device fitted within the prosthesis might be a possible solution, provided that issues with automated fall detection and time of deployment of the protective mechanism are solved. The first objective of this study was to give some examples of the times and durations of descent during a real forward fall of a transfemoral amputee that occurred inadvertently while attending a gait measurement session to assess the load applied on the residuum. The second objective was to present five semi-automated methods of detection of the time of descent using the load data. The load was measured directly at 200 Hz using a six-channel transducer. The average time and duration of descent were 242 ± 42 ms (145-310 ms) and 619 ± 42 ms (550-715 ms), respectively. This study demonstrated that the transition between walking and falling was characterized by times of descent that occurred sequentially. The sensitivity and specificity of an automated algorithm might be improved by combining several methods of detection based on the deviation of the loads measured from their own trends and from a template previously established.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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