Fabrication and application of an adjustable myoelectric transhumeral prosthetic socket
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although upper limb myoelectric prostheses can offer improved functionality and dexterity over body-powered systems, abandonment rates remain high. User dissatisfaction in comfort and control are among the top contributors. The design of the prosthetic socket must be comfortable, while maintaining contact of control electrodes with the residual limb throughout the day. We present a myoelectric socket design that provides user-adjustable compression over electrode control sites to promote consistent control, while maintaining comfort and fit. TECHNIQUE: A cable tensioning system was threaded through a series of paneled windows in the socket wall over electrode sites. Adjusting tension provided tuning of electrode contact. DISCUSSION: A case study of a single transhumeral prosthetic user with a follow-up interview 11 months post delivery suggests that our adjustable design has the potential to address control and comfort challenges, critical factors in myoelectric prosthetic use, and abandonment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Achieving consistent electrode contact with muscle control sites in traditional rigid sockets is a critical challenge for myoelectric prostheses. We present a unique solution via user-adjustable electrode contacts built into the socket.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".