MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295787364 · doi:10.1080/24725838.2022.2124325

Exploring the Change in Metabolic Cost of Walking before and after Familiarization with a Passive Load-Bearing Exoskeleton: A Case Series

2022· article· en· W4295787364 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Diamond-Ouellette, A. Telonio, Thomas Karakolis, Jean Leblond, Laurent J. Bouyer, Krista L. Best

Bibliographic record

VenueIISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleDefence Research and Development CanadaCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonTreadmillGaitMetabolic costPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePayload (computing)Physical therapyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONSMilitary personnel are at greater risk of injuries due to frequent load carriage. Novel exoskeleton technology may have benefits for soldiers, such as reduced physical burden through load carriage support that may result in decreased metabolic cost, reduced fatigue, and lower risk of injuries during walking. However, as for most assistive devices, a familiarization period is likely necessary to obtain the full potential of the device. Our results show that the metabolic cost of walking (MWC) was initially increased significantly upon provision of the passive exoskeleton, though it returned to baseline values after a 9-day familiarization period. The exoskeleton remained effective after a three-month pause, with a MCW below baseline. These results suggest that to properly assess the assistance of an exoskeleton, a sufficient familiarization period should be mandatory.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human FactorsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207