MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200919226 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.37113

REVIEW OF PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS NEEDS FOR 21ST CENTURY – VISION FOR 2025

2021· article· en· W3200919226 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Saeed Zahedi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsContext (archaeology)OrthoticsQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineComputer sciencePhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207