MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162793360 · doi:10.3109/03093646.2010.520060

Lower-Limb Prosthetic Technologies in the Developing World

2010· review· en· W2162793360 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProsthetics and Orthotics International · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWork (physics)MedicineFunction (biology)Medical physicsRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · 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