PATIENT TRIAL EVALUATION OF A PERFORATED, PIN-LOCK PROSTHETIC LINER FOR SWEAT MANAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Among amputees, the most commonly reported problem affecting daily quality-of-life is excessive sweating1,2. Some studies report that as many as seven out of ten amputees are affected1,3. Compared to able-bodied people, trans-tibial amputees expend up to 40% more energy during every-day activities, which contributes to excess perspiration4. Particularly common is localised sweating on the residual limb. This could be due to the use prosthetic liners made from non-porous, cushioning materials, such as TPE Gel, Polyurethane or silicones. With these problems in mind, a type of silicone liner has been produced that contains perforations along the length and at the distal end. These perforations permit the warm air to move away from the residuum, allowing better air circulation and, if sweating does occur, the perforations allow moisture to escape. The result is drier, cooler skin and a healthier environment for the residual limb. This study reports prosthetist and patient feedback data from trials of the pin-lock version of these liners. Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32011/24430 How to cite: Ana Gallego A, McCarthy J, McGrath M, Kercher A, Zahedi S, Moser D. PATIENT TRIAL EVALUATION OF A PERFORATED, PIN-LOCK PROSTHETIC LINER FOR SWEAT MANAGEMENT. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, POSTER PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32011 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".