Transtibial amputee gait with the unity suspension system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: Experimental study.Objectives: Research is lacking on the Unity suspension system’s effect on gait performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Unity elevated vacuum system on level walking performance while the vacuum was active (ON) and inactive (OFF).Methods: Twelve unilateral transtibial amputees were fit with the Ossur elevated vacuum suspension system (Unity) and Pro-flex XC foot. After one month accommodation period, 3D motion analysis was performed using the CAREN-Extended system. Temporal-spatial, kinematics, and kinetics were examined during level walking to understand the effect of the elevated vacuum, separate trials were completed with the vacuum active (ON) or inactive (OFF).Results: Significant differences were found between vacuum conditions (ON and OFF) for some temporal-spatial gait parameters, but differences were very small and may not be clinically significant. Differences between vacuum conditions on most kinetic and kinematic gait parameters were also low. However, step length symmetry between intact and prosthetic limbs improved with active elevated vacuum (ON).Conclusions: Elevated vacuum suspension’s effect on level walking gait is small if a well-fitting liner-based socket is provided.Implications for rehabilitationStep length symmetry between intact and prosthetic limbs improved with an active vacuum system.Differences between vacuum conditions on most gait parameters were small during level walking.Subjective feedback showed improved proprioception and comfort with an active vacuum system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".