Rehabilitative and assistive wearable mechatronic upper-limb devices: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been a trend toward assistive mechatronic devices that are wearable. These devices provide the ability to assist without tethering the user to a specific location. However, there are characteristics of these devices that are limiting their ability to perform motion tasks and the adoption rate of these devices into clinical settings. The objective of this research is to perform a review of the existing wearable assistive devices that are used to assist with musculoskeletal and neurological disorders affecting the upper limb. A review of the existing literature was conducted on devices that are wearable, assistive, and mechatronic, and that provide motion assistance to the upper limb. Five areas were examined, including sensors, actuators, control techniques, computer systems, and intended applications. Fifty-three devices were reviewed that either assist with musculoskeletal disorders or suppress tremor. The general trends found in this review show a lack of requirements, device details, and standardization of reporting and evaluation. Two areas to accelerate the evolution of these devices were identified, including the standardization of research, clinical, and engineering details, and the promotion of multidisciplinary culture. Adoption of these devices into their intended application domains relies on the continued efforts of the community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".