Scoping Review of Mechanical Testing of the Structural and Material Properties of Lower-Limb Prosthetic Sockets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Lower-limb amputations account for most cases seen by certified prosthetists in the United States. Fundamental to the success of a lower-limb prosthesis is the socket, and fundamental to the success of a socket is safety and durability. Currently, there are no standards specific to ensuring the safety and durability of lower-limb prosthetic sockets. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the mechanical testing procedures used to date to assess the structural and material properties of lower-limb prosthetic sockets, with a view to informing the development of future standards. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus databases and the Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal website to identify relevant articles. Articles published in English were included if they used mechanical testing to assess the socket and/or socket material and presented those test results. Results Fourteen articles were included in this review. They described 30 different mechanical test protocols, consisting of 12 different types of mechanical tests. The most common mechanical tests conducted were tensile, static load, and cyclic load testing. Of the 30 test protocols, 20 referenced current standards that do not include sockets within their scope and modified them in various ways to allow testing of sockets. Of the 14 included articles, 8 described using a mock residual limb during testing, all of which were unique in their composition. Conclusion Individual researchers modified existing, nonsocket standards in varying ways to adopt them for use in testing lower-limb prosthetic sockets. This scoping review describes information that may inform the development of socket-specific test protocols. Clinical Relevance Future research is needed to determine which tests are good indicators of clinical safety and durability in order to link quantitative results of mechanical testing to the safety and durability of everyday socket use.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".