Evaluation of an interphalangeal-joint prosthetic hand in trans-radial prosthesis users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A body-powered functional and cosmetically appeasing hand with moving interphalangeal joints (IPJ-Hand) was created. Function and satisfaction with the IPJ-Hand, conventional hand (CH) and functional hook (FH) in trans-radial prosthesis users were evaluated. METHODS: Eight participants with trans-radial amputations were provided with three prosthetic hands and performed the Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT), Brief Activity Measure of Upper Limb Amputees (BAM-ULA) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology QUEST). RESULTS: The data are shown as the median and interquartile range (IQR) due to skewed data distribution. Differences across hands were seen in NHPT with CH 57 (13.3), FH 49.5 (26.5), IPJ-H and 49 (14.8) seconds respectively. BAM-ULA, 10 (1.5), FH 10 (0.7), and IPJ-Hand 10 (1.7). QUEST scores, FH 28.5 (7.2) with the highest score, IPJ-Hand 26 (6.8), and lastly CH 25.5 (9.2). CONCLUSION: Individual participant results varied, with some participants performing better on the NHPT when using the IPJ-Hand when compared to the CH and FH. No differences between hands on the BAM-ULA were seen, and although no large differences in QUEST were observed, users performed best using IPJ-Hand.Key messagesAn interphalangeal joint prosthetic hand (IPJ-Hand) offers the similar function of a prosthetic hook, and the appearance of a conventional hand, but with improved dexterity.Minimal resources are needed to create the IPJ-Hand for prosthesis wearers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".