Safety and usability of the MAK exoskeleton in patients with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability in adults worldwide, and one of the main objectives in the rehabilitation of these patients is to recover the gait. New technologies have emerged to cope with this issue, complementing conventional therapy with the use of devices such as exoskeletons. The Marsi Active Knee (MAK) exoskeleton (Marsi Bionics SL, Madrid, Spain) has already been tested, but an updated version was improved to allow the patients to perform functional exercises. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and usability of the MAK in the stroke population as well as its potential clinical effects. METHODS: A single-group open label intervention trial was conducted. The device was used twice a week for 5 weeks during 1 h per visit. During the visits, sit-to-stand transitions, walking, stair climbing, trunk rotations, and weight-transfer exercises were performed using the device. Adverse events were collected from participants and therapists to assess safety. The Quebec User Evaluation of the Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) was used by both therapists and participants to assess usability. To evaluate its clinical effects, active range of motion (ROM) and muscle strength were assessed in the lower limb. RESULTS: Six participants with stroke were recruited. The device was shown to be safe since no serious adverse events were reported neither by patients nor by therapists. Every proposed exercise was performed. Regarding clinical effects, overall muscle strength showed an increase after the treatment, although ROM measurements did not show any difference. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that the MAK device is safe for stroke patients. Nevertheless, further changes to enhance usability are recommended, such as an improvement of the attachment system and an adaptation for the drop foot. Beneficial effects regarding increases in muscle strength were obtained. Further trials with a larger sample size, longer intervention periods, and a control group are needed to verify these results. Also, future research should focus on the usability of the MAK as an assistive technology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".