Wheelchair pushrim kinetics measurement: A method to cancel inaccuracies due to pushrim weight and wheel camber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is largely used in research and increasingly used in clinical practice to measure the forces and moments applied on the wheelchair pushrims by the user. However, in some situations (i.e. cambered wheels or increased pushrim weight), the recorded kinetics may include dynamic offsets that affect the accuracy of the measurements. In this work, an automatic method to identify and cancel these offsets is proposed and tested. First, the method was tested on an experimental bench with different cambers and pushrim weights. Then, the method was generalized to wheelchair propulsion. Nine experienced wheelchair users propelled their own wheelchairs instrumented with two SmartWheels with anti-slip pushrim covers. The dynamic offsets were correctly identified using the propulsion acquisition, without needing a separate baseline acquisition. A kinetic analysis was performed with and without dynamic offset cancellation using the proposed method. The most altered kinetic variables during propulsion were the vertical and total forces, with errors of up to 9N (p<0.001, large effect size of 5). This method is simple to implement, fully automatic and requires no further acquisitions. Therefore, we advise to use it systematically to enhance the accuracy of existing and future kinetic measurements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".