Long-term use of the JACO robotic arm: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Past research with JACO has principally focused on the short-term impacts on new users. Therefore, this study aims to document the long-term impacts of this assistive device on users and their family caregivers following prolonged use. METHODS: Users' characteristics, caregivers' characteristics and expenses related to JACO were documented with questionnaires designed for this study. Upper extremity performance was measured with an adaptation of an upper extremity performance test, the TEMPA, and accomplishment of life habits was documented in an interview based on the LIFE-H questionnaire. Satisfaction with JACO and psychosocial impacts of its use were measured with validated questionnaires, namely the QUEST and the PIADS-10. Impacts of JACO on family caregivers were documented with a validated questionnaire, the CATOM. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. RESULTS: Seven users and five caregivers were recruited. One user had expenses related to JACO in the past two months. Users had a better upper extremity performance with JACO than without it and they used their robotic arm to accomplish certain life habits. Most users were satisfied with JACO and the psychosocial impacts were positive. Impacts on family caregivers were slight. CONCLUSIONS: JACO increased performance in manipulation and facilitated the accomplishment of certain life habits. Users' increased participation in their life habits may slightly decrease the amount of caregiver assistance required. Future studies are needed to clarify its economic potential, its impact on caregivers' burden, including paid caregivers, and the variability in the tasks performed using JACO. Implications for Rehabilitation The use of JACO may have positive impacts on its users in terms of upper extremity performance, accomplishment of life habits, satisfaction with the device and psychosocial impacts. More research is needed to quantify more accurately the economic potential of the long-term use of JACO, to explore the factors related to the variability in the tasks performed using JACO, and to clarify the impact of JACO on caregivers' burden, including paid caregivers.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".