Investigating the Feasibility and Safety of Osseointegration With Neural Interfaces for Advanced Prosthetic Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osseointegrated neural interfaces (ONI), particularly in conjunction with peripheral nerve interfaces (PNIs), have emerged as a promising advancement for intuitive neuroprosthetics. PNIs can decode neural signals and allow precise prosthetic movement control and bidirectional communication for haptic feedback, while osseointegration can address limitations of traditional socket-based prosthetics, such as poor stability, limited dexterity, and lack of sensory feedback. This review explores advancements in ONIs, including screw-fit and press-fit systems and their integration with PNIs for bidirectional communication. ONIs integrated with PNIs (OIPNIs) have shown improvements in signal fidelity, motor control, and sensory feedback compared to popular surface electromyography (sEMG) systems. Additionally, emerging technologies such as hybrid electrode designs (e.g., cuff and sieve electrode (CASE)) and regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces (RPNIs) show potential for enhancing selectivity and reducing complications such as micromotion and scarring. Despite these advances, challenges remain, including infection risk, electrode degradation, and variability in long-term signal stability. Osseointegration combined with advanced neural interfaces represents a transformative approach to prosthetic control, offering more natural and intuitive movement with sensory feedback. Further research is needed to address long-term biocompatibility, reduce surgical invasiveness, and explore emerging technologies such as machine learning for personalized ONI designs. The findings of this review underscore the potential of ONIs to enhance embodiment and quality of life for amputees and highlight current pitfalls and possible areas of improvement and future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".