Clinical evaluation of a prosthetic suspension system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate and compare a newly designed suspension system with a common suspension in the market. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. METHODS: Looped liners with hook fastener and Iceross Dermo Liner with pin/lock system were mechanically tested using a tensile testing machine in terms of system safety. A total of 10 transtibial amputees participated in this study and were asked to use these two different suspension systems. The pistoning was measured between the liner and socket through a photographic method. Three static axial loading conditions were implemented, namely, 30, 60, and 90 N. Furthermore, subjective feedback was obtained. RESULTS: Tensile test results showed that both systems could safely tolerate the load applied to the prosthesis during ambulation. Clinical evaluation confirmed extremely low pistoning in both systems (i.e. less than 0.4 cm after adding 90 N traction load to the prosthesis). Subjective feedback also showed satisfaction with both systems. However, less traction at the end of the residual limb was reported while looped liner was used. CONCLUSION: The looped liner with hook fastener is safe and a good alternative for individuals with transtibial amputation as this system could solve some problems with the current systems. Clinical relevance The looped liner and hook fastener were shown to be good alternative suspension for people with lower limb amputation especially those who have difficulty to use and align the pin/lock systems. This system could safely tolerate centrifugal forces applied to the prosthesis during normal and fast walking.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".