Refined clothespin relocation test and assessment of motion
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
BACKGROUND: Advancements in upper limb prosthesis design have focused on providing increased degrees of freedom for the end effector through multiple articulations of a prosthetic hand, wrist and elbow. Measuring improvement in patient function with these devices requires development of appropriate assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: This study presents a refined clothespin relocation test for measuring performance and assessing compensatory motion between able-bodied subjects and subjects with upper limb impairments. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. METHODS: Trunk and head motions of 13 able-bodied subjects who performed the refined clothespin relocation test were compared to the motion of a transradial prosthesis user with a single degree of freedom hand. RESULTS: There were observable differences between the prosthesis user and the able-bodied group. The assessment used provided a clear indication of the differences in motion through analysis of compensatory motion. CONCLUSION: The refined clothespin relocation test provides additional benefits over the standard clothespin assessment and makes identification of compensatory motions easily identifiable to the researcher. While this article establishes the method for the new assessment, further validation will need to be performed with more users. Clinical relevance The refined test provides a more defined structure for the trajectory of the hand/terminal device than the standard protocol for the clothespin relocation test. This will help researchers interested in motion studies of limb segments to efficiently compare and analyse motion between able-bodied and prosthesis user groups.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it