MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386363091 · doi:10.1109/tmrb.2023.3310040

Design Considerations for the Development of Lower Limb Pediatric Exoskeletons: A Literature Review

2023· review· en· W4386363091 on OpenAlexafffund
Amandine Gesta, Sofiane Achiche, Abolfazl Mohebbi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsExoskeletonCerebral palsyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitAnkleMedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral Palsy is the most prevalent cause of gait disorder in childhood, affecting the range of motion, power, and joint torques of children. Several treatments are available, ranging from physical therapy to surgery. However, these treatments are usually complex, costly, and long. Robotic exoskeletons could provide longer, more frequent, and personalized training sessions with quantified data on the gait characteristics. Unfortunately, very few pediatric exoskeletons are available compared to those for adults. Therefore, design guidelines are needed for the development of pediatric exoskeletons to facilitate market entry. This article proposes design considerations through an in-depth review of the available pediatric lower-limb exoskeletons. This research has identified nine exoskeletons with at least one actuated joint at the ankle level and discussed their clinical, mechanical, and control characteristics. Although all the identified exoskeletons use electric motors to reduce their weight, improvements must be made to further minimize it. In addition, these exoskeletons need to be more easily adaptable to the user’s morphology. Impedance control methods are commonly used, which ensures the interaction safety. However, they should be more personalized to the specific neurological deficiencies. Furthermore, stronger validation of these exoskeletons is required through clinical trials.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and BionicsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207