THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDITIONAL MID SWING TOE CLEARANCE FOR AMPUTEES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased prosthetic hip to toe distance and insufficient mid swing toe clearance of a prosthetic foot is a well-recognized inadequacy for lower limb prosthesis users with wide and possible grave consequences on their ambulation capabilities. Most important are increased risk of falls and abnormal compensatory gait patterns with secondary unwanted physical effect like generally deceased mobility, muscular-skeletal pain and joint degeneration, i.e. osteoarthritis, with possible significant health economic effect. Even though insufficient toe clearance can be device related and technically or even intentionally induced for attaining equal length of the lower extremities in a neutral standing position or the stance phase, it is important to be aware of available technical solutions that can counteract the problem, like swing phase dorsiflexing feet, vacuum suspension systems, polycentric axis knees rather than single-axis knees and adequate knee flexion in early swing and swing-flexion assistance in the case of bionic knees. Article PDf Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/30813/23259 How to cite: Lechler K, and Kristjansson K. The importance of additional mid swing toe clearance for amputees. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. Volume1, Issue2, No.1, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.30813
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".