Quality, productivity, and economic implications of exoskeletons for occupational use: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the current state of knowledge on the quality and productivity of workers and their work while wearing exoskeletons, as well as the economic implications of exoskeletons for occupational use. Following the PRISMA guidelines, six databases were systematically searched for relevant journal articles, written in English, and published since January 2000. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria had their quality assessed using JBI's Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (Non-Randomized Experimental Studies). A total of 6,722 articles were identified and 15 articles focusing on the impact of exoskeletons on quality and productivity of exoskeleton users while performing occupational tasks were included in this study. None of the included articles evaluated the economic implications of exoskeletons for occupational use. This study revealed several quality and productivity measures (e.g., endurance time, task completion time, number of errors, number of task cycles completed) used to evaluate the impact of exoskeletons. The current state of the literature suggests that quality and productivity impacts of exoskeleton use are dependent on task characteristics that should be considered when adopting exoskeletons. Future studies should evaluate the impact of exoskeleton use in the field and on a diverse pool of workers, as well as its economic implications to better support decision-making in the adoption of exoskeletons within organizations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".