MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Review of Knee Exoskeleton Design Aspects for Improving User Comfort

2024· review· en· W4399801864 on OpenAlexaff
Kaleb Mannion, Émélie Séguin, Marc Doumit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knee exoskeletons are mechanical devices specifically designed to be worn with the purpose of enhancing the physical abilities of the user. They are seeing adoption in various fields, such as rehabilitation after injury, mobility assistance for the elderly, and reducing strain on workers in industrial settings. While technological advancement in actuation and controls has greatly contributed to the development of exoskeletons, user comfort is a key factor limiting their success. This paper presents a review of five identified critical design parameters that impact user comfort: exoskeleton joint, connection mechanism, interface material, weight, and control system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207