Integrating Upper-Limb Prostheses with the Human Body: Technology Advances, Readiness, and Roles in Human–Prosthesis Interaction
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
Significant advances in bionic prosthetics have occurred in the past two decades. The field's rapid expansion has yielded many exciting technologies that can enhance the physical, functional, and cognitive integration of a prosthetic limb with a human. We review advances in the engineering of prosthetic devices and their interfaces with the human nervous system, as well as various surgical techniques for altering human neuromusculoskeletal systems for seamless human-prosthesis integration. We discuss significant advancements in research and clinical translation, focusing on upper limbprosthetics since they heavily rely on user intent for daily operation, although many discussed technologies have been extended to lower limb prostheses as well. In addition, our review emphasizes the roles of advanced prosthetics technologies in complex interactions with humans and the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of individual research advances. Finally, we discuss current gaps and controversies in the field and point out future research directions, guided by TRLs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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