PROSTHETIC LIMB USER EXPERIENCES WITH CROSSOVER FEET: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY TO EXPLORE OUTCOMES THAT MATTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
 A variety of prosthetic feet are available to meet the diverse needs of people with lower limb amputation. Outcome measures selected to assess comparative effectiveness of prosthetic feet are most often chosen by clinicians and researchers.1 Therefore, these measures may not reflect the outcomes that are most important to lower limb prosthesis users. Qualitative research can give voice to prosthesis users and promote the consideration of user priorities when selecting outcome measures for clinical assessment and research studies. This study explored the lived experience and outcomes of importance to individuals who have worn both traditional energy storing feet and crossover feet.
 Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32042/24456
 How to cite: McDonald C.L, Cheever S.M , Morgan S.J., Hafner B.J. PROSTHETIC LIMB USER EXPERIENCES WITH CROSSOVER FEET: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY TO EXPLORE OUTCOMES THAT MATTER. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, ORAL PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32042 
 Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee. 
 http://www.aopanet.org/
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".