MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401809943 · doi:10.1186/s42466-024-00342-3

User expectations and experiences of an assistive robotic arm in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a multicenter observational study

2024· article· en· W4401809943 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurological Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCharité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
KeywordsObservational studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDoorsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisRobotic armActivities of daily livingPhysical therapyRating scaleMedicineMotor functionAssistive technologyPsychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Robotic arms are innovative assistive devices for ALS patients with progressive motor deficits of arms and hands. The objective was to explore the patients´ expectations towards a robotic arm system and to assess the actual experiences after the provision of the device. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted at 9 ALS centers in Germany. ALS-related functional deficits were assessed using the ALS-Functional Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-R). Motor deficit of the upper limbs was determined using a subscore of three arm-related items of the ALSFRS-R (items 4-6; range 0-12 points). User expectations before provision (expectation group, n = 85) and user experiences after provision (experience group, n = 14) with the device (JACO Assistive Robotic Device, Kinova, Boisbriand, QC, Canada) were assessed. RESULTS: In the total cohort, mean ALSFRS-R subscore for arm function was 1.7 (SD: 2.0, 0-9) demonstrating a severe functional deficit of the upper limbs. In the expectation group (n = 85), the following use cases of the robotic arm have been prioritized: handling objects (89%), close-body movements (88%), pressing buttons (87%), serving drinks (86%), and opening cabinets and doors (85%). In the experience group (n = 14), handling objects (79%), serving drinks (79%), near-body movements (71%), pushing buttons (71%), serving food (64%), and opening doors (64%) were the most frequent used cases. Most patients used the device daily (71.4%, n = 10), and 28.6% (n = 4) several times a week. All patients of the experience group found the device helpful, felt safe while using the device, and were satisfied with its reliability. NPS of the assistive robotic arm revealed 64% "promoters" (strong recommendation), 29% "indifferents" (uncertain recommendation) and 7% "detractors" (no recommendation). Total NPS was + 57 demonstrating strong patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of procurement with a robotic assistive arm was confined to patients with severe functional deficit of the upper limbs. User experience underlined the wide spectrum of use cases of assistive robotic arms in ALS. The positive user experience together with high satisfaction underscore that robotic arm systems serve as a valuable treatment option in ALS patients with severe motor deficits of the arms.

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 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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.190 · 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