Manuscript title: The effect of three dimensional printing hinged ankle foot orthosis in chronic stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundThree-dimensional printing (3DP) is a promising technique utilized in orthosis fabrication, including ankle foot orthosis for stroke patients. However, the effects on ankle biomechanics remains unclear. ObjectivesTo compare the plantar pressure distribution and patient’s subjective experience in chronic stroke patients during 3DP hinged ankle foot orthosis (3DP-HAFO) and anterior ankle foot orthosis (A-AFO) walking MethodsTen patients with first-ever unilateral stroke were enrolled in this study. All patients performed 10-meter walk test in 3 different conditions, including 3DP-HAFO walking, A-AFO walking, and bare foot walking. The plantar pressure parameters including contact area, maximum force, and peak pressure were collected using Pedar X insole system. Gait asymmetry analysis of the plantar pressure parameters was conducted. Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) was used for patient’s satisfaction.Results3DP-HAFO walking revealed significant increase in medial midfoot peak pressure compared to bare foot walking. Gait asymmetry analysis illustrated more even medial midfoot contact area during 3DP-HAFO walking compared to bare foot walking while A-AFO walking did not. In QUEST survey, 3DP-HAFO outweighs A-AFO in fitting and durableness. Conclusions3DP-HAFO may improve ankle instability and gait asymmetry in chronic stroke patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".