MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912008665 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32022

MYOELECTRIC ELBOW-WRIST-HAND ORTHOSIS WITH ACTIVE GRASP FOR PATIENTS WITH STROKE: A CASE SERIES

2018· article· en· W2912008665 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eric Shoemaker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElbowMedicineOrthoticsStroke (engine)Physical therapyUpper limbElectromyographyHand strengthGRASPGrip strengthSurgeryComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION
 This case series presents prescription, evaluation, fitting and initial functional benefits of a myoelectric elbow- wrist-hand orthosis with active grasp. Custom fit, myoelectric orthoses are now also being provided to patients with upper extremity paresis due conditions such as stroke, brachial plexus injury, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to enable them to self-initiate and control movement of a partially paretic limb using their own volitional myoelectric signals. A recent study of 18 chronic stroke participants demonstrated functional improvements on the Fugl-Meyer Impairment Scale (FM) and a battery of functional tasks with this device.1
 Abstract PDF Link:https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32022/24440
 How to cite: Shoemaker E. MYOELECTRIC ELBOW-WRIST-HAND ORTHOSIS WITH ACTIVE GRASP FOR PATIENTS WITH STROKE: A CASE SERIES. 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.v1i2.32022 
 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207