Applications of Additive Manufacturing, or 3D Printing, in the Rehabilitation of Individuals With Deafblindness: A Scoping Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is a promising tool to produce assistive technology. For instance, individuals with deafblindness (concurrent vision and hearing loss) could benefit from tactile AM-based products as touch may be their main gateway to access information. This study thus aimed to synthesize evidence on the current and potential practices involving AM in the context of deafblindness rehabilitation and to inform healthcare professionals and family caregivers on how AM can improve functioning and quality of life. A comprehensive literature search of ten databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Global Health, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Web of Science, Engineering Village, and Scopus) was performed to identify sources focusing on the use of AM toward rehabilitation goals of individuals with deafblindness. Nine of 1,397 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings reveal that AM can counter barriers to full accessibility by enabling professionals to produce customized adapted material and communication devices, thus assisting individuals with deafblindness in communication, mobility, and learning. However, this review highlights a need for more AM research, resources, and training: interdisciplinary collaborations with AM specialists thus appear essential in improving rehabilitation services with AM.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".