The effect of damping in prosthetic ankle and knee joints on the biomechanical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the growing number of variable-damping prosthetic knee and ankle components and broad number of potential biomechanical outcomes, a systematic review is needed to assess advantages of damped knee and ankle units over non-damped prostheses. OBJECTIVES: This study provides an overview of the biomechanical outcomes associated with the use of prosthetic knees and ankles with damping mechanisms in individuals with lower limb amputation. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. METHODS: A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from June 1994 to March 2016. The level of evidence of each article was assessed using a 13-element checklist for evaluating non-randomized controlled trials for quality assessment. Afterward, the studies were classified as A-level, B-level, or C-level based on total score and positive scores from certain key categories. RESULTS: In total, 22 papers remained for the quality assessment based on the inclusion criteria. In total, 15 studies scored sufficiently high quality scores to be classified. One article scored as A-level, eight as B-level, and six as C-level. In total, 10 studied knees and 5 examined ankles. Sample sizes ranged from 5 to 28 subjects. CONCLUSION: Available studies were evaluated in detail and biomechanical outcomes were extracted from the studies that met criteria. Results of this review indicate that study methodology and outcome measures were heterogeneous across reviewed papers. This could be an explanation for inconsistent findings of the reviewed studies. Only self-selected gait speed showed a consistent difference when dampers were applied to the leg. Thus, further research is required in this area. Clinical relevance This study provides an overview of evidence related to prosthetic knee and foot/ankle components with damping attachments. Research related to biomechanical outcomes is of great importance for researchers and practitioners in this area. The studies drew mixed conclusions, but walking speed was consistently different for damped versus non-damped components.
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 | 0.019 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".