Comparative study of the circumferential and volumetric analysis between conventional casting and three-dimensional scanning methods for transtibial socket: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transtibial prosthetic sockets can be fabricated either by the conventional way, which involve using plaster of Paris bandages for casting. This will include modifications through hand, scanning and digital imaging of software. The aim of this study is to determine the circumferential profiles and conduct a volumetric analysis of a conventional socket that has fabrication using biosculptor technology. In doing this, a male transtibial amputee, age 28 years old with stable health condition was studied, where circumferential measurements were taken at intervals of 1 cm from the distal end of the residual limb to the medial tibial plateau level. Furthermore, the interior volume of both sockets and residuum were determined directly using water displacement method. A comparative value for the calculation of volume was also carried out using engineering mathematical equations. From these measurements, a total surface bearing transtibial sockets was fabricated to compare the changes of circumferential values of both sockets. The finding shows a percentage of the difference between the volume of the residual limb and conventional sockets to be 6.09%, whereas the biosculptor fabrication socket was 7.84% using the water displacement method. A comparison of circumferential profiles and volumetric analysis findings on the contrary showed that socket fabricated using the biosculptor technology is interchangeable with the conventional socket with more advantages, where biosculptor technology produces cheaper sockets and faster process with digital function in the procedure, unlike the conventional manual technique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".