Gait adaptations of transfemoral prosthesis users across multiple walking tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For people with lower extremity amputations, the decreased confidence and suboptimal gait associated with dynamic instability can negatively affect mobility and quality of life. Quantifying dynamic instability could enhance clinical decision making related to lower extremity prosthetics and inform future prosthetic research. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively examine gait adaptations in transfemoral amputees across various walking conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Plantar-pressure data were collected from 11 individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputations using an in-shoe plantar-pressure measurement system while navigating rigid and soft ground, ramp, and stair conditions. Six parameters were examined: anterior-posterior and medial-lateral center-of-pressure direction changes, sensor cell loading frequency (cell triggering), maximum lateral force position, double support time, and stride time. Paired t-tests and analyses of variance were used to examine differences between limbs and walking conditions, respectively. RESULTS: Values for medial-lateral center-of-pressure direction change, sensor cell loading frequency, and double support time were significantly greater on the intact limb than the prosthetic limb. Significant differences between conditions occurred only for anterior-posterior center-of-pressure direction change and double support time on the prosthetic limb. CONCLUSION: Higher values on the intact limb suggest that it plays a key role in maintaining stability and optimizing body progression during different tasks. Differences between participants, limbs, and walking condition indicate parameter sensitivity to adaptive gait strategies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This plantar-pressure-based approach is a viable option for point-of-care evaluation of locomotor performance, across common various mobility tasks and activities of daily living. The information obtained could be valuable for prosthetic prescription and optimization of prosthetic fit and alignment, potentially improving mobility for prosthetic users with dynamic stability deficits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".