REVIEW OF PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS NEEDS FOR 21ST CENTURY – VISION FOR 2025
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What would we do, if only we had the power to go back?! The best way to consider this is to align and join all the known dots. To think of Prosthetics and Orthotics (P&O) as a system holistically centred around care of the user, identifying all their needs continuously, in their environment and in their lifestyle. This could produce a new value proposition for all multi-disciplinary team members by generating patient-centred therapeutic benefits and clinical outcomes that align all stakeholders in P&O towards using a common narrative, which makes decisions based on data. In this case, data is the outcome, using Standards and Instruments which are validated (e.g. www.amprom.uk) to quantify questions such as: “Have we reduce risk of falls?”, “Have we reduced risk of tissue injury?”, “Have we reduced risk of low back pain?”, “Have we reduced long term risk of osteoarthritis?”, etc. If we have, we are assured this will benefit the comfort and confidence for the user. We can have confidence in rehabilitation measured by improved stability and increased activity, and other measures which enable the accurate classification of products and services to match users. A prescription index, based on Outcomes, could, for example, be calculated by a formula which accounts for the percentage reduction in falls probability, a patient satisfaction score, a mobility score and a quality-of-life score, allowing practitioners to base their choices of treatment pathways and component selection. This paper provides both the context for and contributing factors that make the proposing of such an objective Prescription Index an interesting thing to consider when discussing Health Economics in P&O. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/37113/28348 How To Cite: Zahedi S. Review of prosthetics & orthotics needs for 21st Century – Vision for 2025. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021; Volume 4, Issue 2, No.20. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.37113 Corresponding Author: Professor Sir Saeed Zahedi,Blatchford Group, Unit D Antura, Bond Close, Basingstoke, RG24 8PZ, United Kingdom.E-Mail: saeed.zahedi@blatchford.co.ukORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6959-632X
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".