MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417304738 · doi:10.1080/03091902.2025.2593410

Experimental and computational analysis and testing of wearable hand tremor control orthoses

2025· article· en· W4417304738 on OpenAlexafffund
Manthan Shah, Dylan Goode, Hadi Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Engineering & Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
FundersMitacs
KeywordsWearable computerUsabilityWearable technologyLimit (mathematics)Omnidirectional antennaParametric statisticsEssential tremor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hand tremors are among the most prevalent neurodegenerative movement disorders, causing involuntary upper-limb oscillations that significantly impair patients' quality of life. While medications and therapy provide limited relief, wearable tremor suppression devices offer a promising non-invasive alternative. A hand tremor absorber, typically passive or active, is designed to counteract involuntary shaking through mechanical or electronic means. The importance of the proposed design lies in its ability to deliver high-performance, multi-axial tremor suppression without motors, power sources, or restrictive bracing, addressing critical gaps in comfort, wearability, and real-world usability that limit existing solutions. This paper presents the analysis and optimisation of a novel passive, omnidirectional hand tremor absorber that achieves substantial amplitude reduction while preserving natural hand motion. Using a full-scale mannequin arm tremor simulator and MATLAB-based parametric modelling (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA), key design parameters were optimised across the clinically relevant 3-7 Hz frequency range. Results demonstrate up to 79% unidirectional and 73% omnidirectional tremor suppression. A compact, donut-shaped orthosis integrating dual perpendicular absorbers was developed to effectively dampen complex, multi-directional tremors, achieving ∼75% reduction in severe cases with a total device weight of only 330 g. By combining passive operation, lightweight ergonomics, and multi-axis efficacy, this design offers a practical, patient-centered solution that overcomes the bulk, cost, and invasiveness of current alternatives. Future work will validate these results in human trials to assess real-world impact on functional independence and quality of life.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Engineering & TechnologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207