MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886095029 · doi:10.1101/388736

Real time monitoring of transtibial elevated vacuum prostheses: a case series on socket air pressure

2018· preprint· en· W2886095029 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine R. Schoepp, Jonathon S. Schofield, David Home, Michael R. Dawson, Edmond Lou, McNiel Keri, Paul D. Marasco, Jacqueline S. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
KeywordsVacuum pumpSlippageAccelerometerPressure measurementAccelerationBiomedical engineeringGaitSimulationMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComposite materialMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Elevated vacuum is a prosthetic suspension method used to reduce slippage between the prosthetic socket and the residual limb. Evaluation of the effectiveness of these systems is limited due to a lack of correlation to actual socket air pressure, particularly during unconstrained movements. This may explain some of the variability in functional outcomes reported in the literature. We developed a light-weight portable socket measurement system to quantify internal socket air pressure, temperature, and acceleration. We implemented the system onto the sockets of three transtibial prosthesis users with mechanical elevated vacuum pumps. Participants completed five functional tasks with and without the vacuum pumps actively connected, including the 2-Minute Walk test, 5-Times Sit-to-Stand test, 4-Square Step test, L-Test, and Figure-8 test. Results demonstrated that the use of elevated vacuum pumps produced different gait profiles and pressure ranges for each user, with significant differences between pump conditions. Two of the participants demonstrated substantially lower air pressure (higher vacuum) over time while the pump was active compared to inactive. The minimum air pressure measured at the completion of the 2-Minute Walk test was −34.6 ± 7.7 kPa, which is not as low as pressures reported in literature during benchtop experiments. One participant did not show substantial changes in pressure over time for either pump condition. Functional task performance was not significantly different between pump conditions. Correlation with accelerometer readings allowed air pressure data to be aligned with the gait cycle; peak positive pressures occurred just following initial contact of the foot in early stance, and the most negative pressures (vacuum) were observed throughout swing. This study has demonstrated the use of a portable data logging tool that may serve the clinical and research communities to quantify the operation of elevated vacuum systems, and better understand the variability of mechanical pump operation and overall system performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207