The influence of transtibial prosthesis type on gait adaptation: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Gait parameters are altered and asymmetrical in individual with transtibial amputation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of four different prosthetic feet on lower-limb biomechanics during gait. Methods One young adult with transtibial ampution performed four gait analysis sessions with four foot-ankle prosthesis (Variflex, Meridium, Echelon, Kinterra). Kinematic, kinetic parameters and gait symmetry were analyzed during different prosthesis conditions. Results The type of prosthesis had little effect on amputee’ spatiotemporal parameters. Throughout the stance phase, an increase hip angle and a reduced knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion were observed in the amputated leg. For kinetic parameters, a reduced propulsive force (SI=0.42–0.65), reduced knee extension moment (mainly during Echelon and Kinterra conditions, SI=0.17 and 0.32, respectively) and an increased knee abduction moment (mainly during the Variflex and Meridium, SI=5.74 and 8.93, respectively) in the amputated leg. Lower support moments were observed in the amputated leg compared to the unaffected leg, regardless of the type of prosthesis (SI=0.61–0.80). Conclusions The prostheses tested induced different lower-limb mechanical adaptations. If better gait symmetry between lower limbs is one of the clinical goals, an objective gait analysis could help clinicians to prescribe prosthetic feet based on quantitative measurement indicators.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".