MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411370142 · doi:10.1016/j.jht.2025.04.001

Develop remote orthotic fabrication workflow using 3D modeling and 3D printing technology for carpometacarpal osteoarthritis

2025· article· en· W4411370142 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Farzad, Joy C. MacDermid, Louis M. Ferreira, O. Remus Tutunea‐Fatan, Adam Górski, Steven Cuypers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreSt Joseph's Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowOsteoarthritis3D printingComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis often requires orthotic intervention to reduce pain and improve function. Traditional orthosis fabrication typically demands in-person clinical visits, which can be a barrier to care. PURPOSE: To develop and validate a fully remote workflow for fabricating custom orthoses using mobile 3D scanning, web-based assessment, and 3D printing technologies for patients with CMC osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot validation study. METHODS: A five-step workflow was created: (1) a web-based application ("Hand Scan") for assessing pain, sensory function, and range of motion; (2) mobile 3D hand scanning using smartphone cameras, with scans processed in Agisoft Metashape; (3) digital joint repositioning using finite element analysis software; (4) orthosis design using parametric modeling; and (5) fabrication using 3D printing with Orfit's low-temperature polycaprolactone filament. Five patients with CMC osteoarthritis were recruited. The application's usability was tested via cognitive interviews. Mobile scanning accuracy was validated against high-precision photogrammetry, and surface deviations of the 3D-printed orthoses were compared with traditional thermoplastic models. RESULTS: The Hand Scan app demonstrated strong content validity. Mobile scans showed a mean absolute deviation of 0.93 mm (SD = 0.61 mm). Joint repositioning yielded a mean deviation of 0.87 mm. The 3D-printed orthoses demonstrated a better fit than thermoplastic models, with a mean surface deviation of 0.95 mm compared to 1.96 mm. The maximum deviation was 3.17 mm for 3D-printed and 5.81 mm for traditional orthoses. CONCLUSIONS: This remote orthotic fabrication workflow is accurate, feasible, and clinically applicable. It supports personalized orthosis design while reducing the need for in-person visits. The workflow has strong potential for telehealth and remote hand therapy services.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand TherapySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207