MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213415965 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2022.3153951

Simulating Ideal Assistive Strategies to Reduce the Metabolic Cost of Walking in the Elderly

2022· article· en· W4213415965 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsExoskeletonIdeal (ethics)Metabolic costAssistive deviceOrthoticsAssistive technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Development of walking assist exoskeletons is a growing area of study, offering a solution to restore, maintain, and enhance mobility. However, applying this technology to the elderly is challenging and there is currently no consensus as to the optimal strategy for assisting elderly gait. The gait patterns of elderly individuals often differ from those of the younger population, primarily in the ankle and hip joints. This study used musculoskeletal simulations to predict how ankle and hip actuators might affect the energy expended by elderly participants during gait. METHODS: OpenSim was used to generate simulations of 10 elderly participants walking at self-selected slow, comfortable, and fast speeds. Ideal flexion/extension assistive actuators were added bilaterally to the ankle or hip joints of the models to predict the maximum metabolic power that could be saved by exoskeletons that apply torques at these joints. RESULTS: Compared to the unassisted scenario, the use of ideal hip actuators resulted in 21±5%, 26±5%, and 30±6% reductions in average metabolic power consumption at slow, comfortable, and fast walking speeds, respectively; use of ideal ankle actuators resulted in 12±3%, 14±2%, and 16±1% metabolic savings, respectively. CONCLUSION: The simulations suggest that providing hip assistance to elderly individuals during walking can result in significantly greater metabolic savings than ankle assistance, assuming kinematics and total joint moments do not change substantially with assistance. SIGNIFICANCE: The achieved research results and analysis provide exoskeleton developers guidance on optimally designing walking assist exoskeletons, thus promoting consensus toward the optimal strategy for assisting elderly individuals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207