Biomechanical analysis of legrest support of occupied wheelchairs: comparison between a conventional and a compensatory legrest
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
This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of elevating legrest on posture and pressure distribution in a group of ten able-bodied subjects sitting in a manual wheelchair. Two types of legrest were tested: a conventional elevating legrest with a fixed axis of rotation, and a compensatory elevating legrest with a moving axis of rotation. A three-dimensional (3-D) kinematics analysis was carried out to assess body posture simultaneously with pressure measurement data collected at the back, seat, calf and foot supports. The compensatory legrest enables to lengthen foot support as the legrest proclines. This compensation at the knee joint level has a beneficial effect in minimizing pelvic and thigh motion as well as in reducing pressure distribution under seat and foot supports. In contrast, the use of a conventional legrest modifies significantly the subject's posture and induces a substantial increase of 40% on pressure data under ischial tuberosities in procline position. These findings are important for disabled and elderly people who need to elevate their lower leg frequently.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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