The influence of a polymer damper on swing-through crutch gait biomechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forearm crutch technology has evolved slowly compared to other assistive mobility devices, despite the highly repetitive nature of forearm crutch gait and the high incidence of overuse injuries. Using 13 able-bodied volunteers between the ages of 19 and 27, we compared the ground reaction forces of a novel crutch design featuring an elastomeric polymer situated below the handle to an identical design without a damper system and to a commercially available generic rigid forearm crutch model. There were no differences in peak vertical force or impulse between crutches. The crutch with the damper system demonstrated a significantly smaller peak braking force and impulse compared to the generic forearm crutch model. However, the crutch with the damper system demonstrated a significantly larger peak propulsive force and impulse compared to both crutch models. This finding indicates that a forearm crutch with a damper system may help to propel the crutch forward when walking on level surfaces, which could impact forward momentum.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".