Real time monitoring of transtibial elevated vacuum prostheses: A case series on socket air pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prosthetic elevated vacuum is a suspension method used to reduce daily volume changes of the residual limb. Evaluation of the effectiveness of these systems is limited due to a lack of correlation to actual socket air pressure, particularly during unconstrained movements. This may explain some of the variability in functional outcomes reported in the literature. Our objective was to develop a light-weight portable socket measurement system to quantify internal socket air pressure, temperature, and acceleration; and to present preliminary results from implementation with three transtibial prosthesis users with mechanical elevated vacuum pumps. Participants completed five functional tasks with and without the vacuum pumps actively connected, including the 2-Minute Walk test, 5-Times Sit-to-Stand test, 4-Square Step test, L-Test, and Figure-8 test. Results demonstrated different gait profiles and pressure ranges for each user. Two of the participants demonstrated substantially lower air pressure (higher vacuum) over time while the pump was active compared to inactive. The minimum air pressure measured for all participants was -34.6 ± 7.7 kPa. One participant did not show substantial changes in pressure over time for either pump condition. Functional task performance was not significantly different between pump conditions. Correlation with accelerometer readings indicated peak positive pressures occurred just following initial contact of the foot in early stance, and the most negative pressures (highest vacuum) were observed throughout swing. This study has demonstrated the use of a portable data logging tool that may serve the clinical and research communities to quantify the operation of elevated vacuum systems, and better understand the variability of mechanical pump operation and overall system performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".