Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid-1990s, a number of key publications and meetings of experts identified major technical issues associated with prosthetic technologies intended for developing countries. These included inadequate durability of prosthetic feet, poor socket quality and prosthetic fit, improper alignment of prostheses, and inferior function of components. To examine the progress that has been made since then in addressing these issues, a comprehensive review of literature was performed. In total, 106 articles were selected and included in the review. The review examined prosthetic technologies categorized into feet and ankles, knees, sockets and suspension, and materials, structures, and alignment methods. Moreover, publications were categorized as technical development, clinical (lab-based) testing, or clinical field testing studies. The results reveal important work that has been carried out to develop and implement standardized outcome measures during field testing, allowing various existing prosthetic technologies to be evaluated in terms of their use, function, durability, and other factors. Progress has also been made toward addressing the aforementioned limitations of prosthetic technologies, however, more research and development is required. This includes improving the durability of the external cosmetic features of prosthetic feet, developing more functional prosthetic knee joints, and simplifying fabrication techniques to further improve outcomes associated with socket fit and prosthetic alignment. Research and development collaborations between developed and developing countries, and the dissemination of ongoing research, development, and evaluation activities are essential to the advancement of prosthetic technologies in these regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".