A parametric 3D printed assistive device for people with cerebral palsy – assessment of outcomes and comparison with a commercial counterpart
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the results of using a parametric design platform to configure and 3D print assistive devices (AD) and how they compare with a commercial counterpart (CommAD). The configurable AD (ConfAD) was a fork/spoon holder. Five subjects with cerebral palsy participated in the study and each had a ConfAD made to fit their dominant hand. They all tested the ConfAD and the CommAD for eating in the daily routine, assisted by an occupational therapist. Functionality and satisfaction of both devices were evaluated using two standard clinical questionnaires - the Individually Prioritized Problem Assessment questionnaire (IPPA) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0). They outlined important issues that the participants prioritized and how they were met by the devices. In the specific cases neither the ConfAD nor the CommAD provided substantial benefits for the participants according to the evaluations, but the questionnaires provided useful information about where the designs should be improved. They show a need for highly personalized solutions which may be solved by 3D printing ADs. A configurator for generating production files starting from a parametric model of an AD may facilitate personalizing ADs, however a sufficiently large number of model versions should be present to meet individual needs. Alternatively, the clinician should be able to edit the models to accommodate said needs. Future research could use clinical evaluations to provide comparable evidence and guide development of efficient and effective frameworks for digital fabrication in terms of clinically feasible AD model sourcing.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it