Examining the viability of carbon fiber reinforced three-dimensionally printed prosthetic feet created by composite filament fabrication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: A low-cost, yet high-functioning, fabrication method for prosthetic components is needed to provide underserved amputee communities with quality mobility devices. Three-dimensional printing is a potential alternative, yet limitations in material characteristics have previously prevented the technology from emerging as a solution. OBJECTIVE:: To validate the application of a novel three-dimensional printing technique as a fabrication method for creating fiber composite patient end-use prosthetic feet. STUDY DESIGN:: Experimental designs were iterated upon throughout mechanical testing. METHODS:: A testing apparatus capable of loading prosthetic feet in dorsiflexion and plantarflexion was constructed. Load displacement data were gathered, and energy analyses were conducted. The three-dimensionally printed feet were compared to a Freedom Innovations Renegade® MX carbon fiber foot and a solid-ankle cushion heel foot. RESULTS:: The three-dimensionally printed feet achieved energy profiles that were similar, and in some cases preferable, to the energy profiles of the Renegade MX and solid-ankle cushion heel foot. The stiffness profiles of the three-dimensionally printed feet varied widely and depended greatly on the design of the feet, as well as the amount and location of the fiber reinforcement. CONCLUSION:: Composite filament fabrication three-dimensional printing has the potential to serve as a fabrication method for the production of energy returning prosthetic feet. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:: The results of this study indicate that carbon fiber reinforced three-dimensionally printed prosthetic feet have the potential to serve as a low-cost alternative to carbon fiber prosthetic feet and that three-dimensional printing has the capacity to function as a viable fabrication method for patient end-use prosthetic 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".