MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892170348 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2018.2869985

A New Modeling Method to Characterize the Stance Control Function of Prosthetic Knee Joints

2018· article· en· W2892170348 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan Andrysek, Jessica Nicole Tomasi, Matthew Leineweber, Arezoo Eshraghi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAnalog Devices
KeywordsArtificial limbsFunction (biology)BiomechanicsComputer scienceEngineeringControl (management)Control engineeringBiomedical engineeringMedicineArtificial intelligenceProsthesisAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Biomechanical models can inform design and optimization of prosthetic devices by connecting empirically derived biomechanical data to device design parameters. A new method is presented to characterize the function of prosthetic stance control under mobility conditions associated with activities of daily living. The method is based on a model of the gait modes corresponding to finite stance control states. METHODS: Empirical data from amputee and simulated gait were acquired using a custom-built wearable instrument and input into the model. RESULTS: The modeling approach was shown to be robust, responsive, and capable of accurate characterization of controller function under diverse locomotor and prosthetic setup conditions. CONCLUSION: Future work is focused on the development of a fully self-contained wearable system, to facilitate collection of large datasets across a variety of user demographics, controller designs, and activities of daily living. SIGNIFICANCE: The method offers predictive capability, which can assist in the virtual testing of new designs or modifications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207