MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936713575 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.31008

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF TRANSTIBIAL SOCKETS FABRICATED USING CONVENTIONAL METHODS AND RAPID PROTOTYPING TECHNIQUES

2019· article· en· W2936713575 on OpenAlex
Brittany Pousett, Aimee Lizcano, Silvia Raschke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsPacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine3v Geomatics (Canada)
FundersMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsCushion3d printedMaterials scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rapid Prototyping is becoming an accessible manufacturing method but before clinical adoption can occur, the safety of treatments needs to be established. Previous studies have evaluated the static strength of traditional sockets using ultimate strength testing protocols outlined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). OBJECTIVE: To carry out a pilot test in which 3D printed sockets will be compared to traditionally fabricated sockets, by applying a static ultimate strength test. METHODOLOGY: 36 sockets were made from a mold of a transtibial socket shape,18 for cushion liners with a distal socket attachment block and 18 for locking liners with a distal 4-hole pattern. Of the 18 sockets, 6 were thermoplastic, 6 laminated composites & 6 3D printed Polylactic Acid. Sockets were aligned in standard bench alignment and placed in a testing jig that applied forces simulating individuals of different weight putting force through the socket both early and late in the stance phase. Ultimate strength tests were conducted in these conditions. If a setup passed the ultimate strength test, load was applied until failure. FINDINGS: All sockets made for cushion liners passed the strength tests, however failure levels and methods varied. For early stance, thermoplastic sockets yielded, laminated sockets cracked posteriorly, and 3D printed socket broke circumferen-tially. For late stance, 2/3 of the sockets failed at the pylon. Sockets made for locking liners passed the ultimate strength tests early in stance phase, however, none of the sockets passed for forces late in stance phase, all broke around the lock mechanism. CONCLUSION: Thermoplastic, laminated and 3D printed sockets made for cushion liners passed the ultimate strength test protocol outlined by the ISO for forces applied statically in gait. This provides initial evidence that 3D printed sockets are statically safe to use on patients and quantifies the static strength of laminated and thermoplastic sockets. However, all set-ups of sockets made for locking liners failed at terminal stance. While further work is needed, this suggests that the distal reinforcement for thermoplastic, laminated and 3D printed sockets with distal cylindrical locks may need to be reconsidered. LAYMAN’S ABSTRACT 3D printing is a new manufacturing method that could be used to make prosthetic sockets (the part of the prosthesis connected to the individual). However, very little is known about the strength of 3D printed sockets and if they are safe to use. As Prosthetists are responsible for providing patients with safe treatments, the strength of 3D printed sockets needs to be established before they can be used in clinical practice. The strength of sockets made using current manufacturing methods was compared to those made using 3D printing. Strength was tested using the static portion of the ISO standard most applicable for this situation which outlines the forces a socket must take at 2 points in walking–when the foot is placed on the ground (early stance) and when the foot pushed off the ground (late stance). Sockets made for two prosthetic designs (cushion and locking) were tested to determine if one is safer than the other. All sockets made for cushion liners passed the standard for forces applied statically. However, different materials failed in different ways. At early stance, thermoplastic sockets yielded, laminated composite sockets cracked and 3D printed sockets broke circumferentially. At late stance other components failed 2/3 of the time before the sockets were affected. This provides initial evidence that sockets made for cushion liners are statically safe to use on patients. Sockets made for locking liners failed around the end, showing that 3D printing should not be used to create sockets with the design tested in this study. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/31008/24937 How to Cite: Pousett B, Lizcano A, Raschke S.U. An investigation of the structural strength of transtibial sockets fabricated using conventional methods and rapid prototyping techniques. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2019; Volume2, Issue1, No.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v2i1.31008 CORRESPONDING AUTHORBrittany Pousett, BSc, MSc, Certified Prosthetist,Head of Research at Barber Prosthetics Clinic,540 SE Marine Dr, Vancouver, British Colombia V5X 2T4, Canada.Email: brittany@barberprosthetics.com

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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