3D PRINTING IN PROSTHETICS, ORTHOTICS AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY: MYTH AND REALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D printing initially captured the public eye when mainstream media began writing about Enabling the Future, a volunteer network that had begun designing and 3D printing prosthetic hands. Many of the stories focused on how this technology was going to disrupt the prosthetic sector. The response from prosthetists was skepticism and concern, in particular warning that 3D printed components would not be robust enough to withstand the activities of daily living. Moreover, they emphasized that fit problems could potentially cause more harm than good. Several years on, this issue explores currant usage and experiences with the technology in prosthetics and, to a limited extent, orthotics. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/42222/32280 How To Cite: Raschke S.U. 3D printing in prosthetics, orthotics and assistive technology: myth and reality. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 2, No.1. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i2.42222E-Mail: silvia-raschke-cpoj@online-publication.com ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7964-4295
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".