The effect of 3D printed assistive technology intervention on the older adults’ independence in activities of daily living: A single-group intervention study
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
There is need for innovative approaches in the production of assistive devices. This study aimed to examine the effects of a Three-Dimensional (3D) Printed Assistive Technology Intervention. Twelve older adults (mean age of 67.83 ± 2.72 years) participated in the study. Assistive devices were designed using a 3D printer. The participants completed the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and the Lawton-Brody IADL scale. Also they completed the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to evaluate their satisfaction with the 3D printed assistive device. The participants’ mean satisfaction score with the assistive devices was found to be 7.00 ± 1.12. After the intervention, significant improvements were observed in the COPM performance subscale (p = 0.016), the FIM motor subscale (p = 0.012), the FIM total score (p = 0.018), and the Lawton-Brody IADL Index (p = 0.024). However, no significant changes were detected in the COPM satisfaction subscale (p = 0.094) or the FIM cognitive subscale (p = 0.069). This study suggest that economically feasible and easily accessible 3D printed assistive devices may serve as an effective alternative to enhance the occupational performance and independence of older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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