EDITORIAL OPINION: VALUE WITHIN THE PROSTHETIC AND ORTHOTIC PROVISION PROCESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Editorial presents an overview of the uptake of clinical outcome measures in the prosthetics and orthotics sector and considers how the use of objective measures contribute to demonstrating value provided. A decade ago, payors began to demand objective data to document costs vs. benefits from prosthetic and orthotic providers. The speed with which the sector responded to help develop measures and to begin to integrate them into practice is remarkable. This suggests an encouraging resilience and ability to adapt on the part of the sector as other trends such as Values-Based Health Care emerge to challenge the sector. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/38442/29321 How To Cite: Raschke S.U. Editorial opinion: value within the prosthetic and orthotic provision process. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.9. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.38442 Corresponding Author: Silvia Ursula Raschke, PhDBritish Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), 3700 Willingdon Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.E-Mail: Silvia_Raschke@bcit.caORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7964-4295
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".