MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011402047 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1738567

Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3011402047 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbandonment (legal)MedicineFunction (biology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Rates of prosthetic device abandonment are dramatically high; however, the reasons behind abandonment are less understood. A scoping review was conducted to explore the current state of the literature on why individuals abandon upper limb prosthetic devices and consider how these reasons have evolved historically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the literature identified 123 articles. After reviewing the articles using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine relevant articles were included in the final review. The included articles covered passive, body-powered and myoelectric prosthetic devices. RESULTS: Across time, reasons for abandonment could be broadly categorized into comfort and function. Weight, temperature and perspiration were among the most common and persistent comfort-related reasons for abandonment. Regarding function, studies-reported abandonment was attributed to key concerns about control and sensory feedback, whereby participants may feel more functional without their device. CONCLUSIONS: In agreement with the previous literature, lack of comfort and function remain persistent reasons for upper limb prosthesis abandonment. Up-to-date research on reasons for abandonment of upper limb prosthetic devices is lacking, and recent prosthesis advancements have not been included in studies of device use, adoption and abandonment. Therefore, future work should explore reasons for abandonment in contemporary upper limb prosthetic devices. By understanding the reasons for prosthetic device abandonment, clinicians, therapists and researchers can use this information to proactively mitigate future upper limb prosthetic device abandonment. Findings from this review can be used to guide future prosthetic device development to improve these areas of concern and satisfy user needs.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONBy understanding the reasons for prosthetic device abandonment, clinicians, therapists and researchers can use this information to proactively mitigate future upper limb prosthetic device abandonment.The findings from this review can be used to guide future prosthetic device development to improve areas of concern and satisfy user needs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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