Functional level assessment of individuals with transtibial limb loss: Evaluation in the clinical setting versus objective community ambulatory activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional level (K level) of prosthetic users is used to choose appropriate prosthetic components, but ratings may highly subjective. A more objective and robust method to determine K level may be appealing. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between K level determined in the clinic to K level based on real world ambulatory activity data collected by StepWatch. Twelve individuals with transtibial limb loss gave informed consent to participate. K level assessments performed in the clinic by a single treating prosthetist were compared with a calculated estimate based on seven days of real world ambulatory activity patterns using linear regression. There was good agreement between the two methods of determining K level with R 2 = 0.775 ( p < 0.001). The calculated estimate of K level based on actual ambulatory activity in real world settings appears to be similar to the treating prosthetist’s assessment of K level based on gait observation and patient responses in the clinic. Clinic-based ambulatory capacity in transtibial prosthetic users appears to correlate with real world ambulatory behavior in this small cohort. Determining functional level based on real world ambulatory activity may supplement clinic-based tests of functional capacity.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".