Quantifying AFO Use, Fit, and Function Via Outcome Measures by Physical Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: For individuals with cerebrovascular accident (IwCVA), there is no outcome measure considered as the gold standard to justify ankle foot orthosis (AFO) use, fit, and function and that takes into consideration inherent properties of the AFO. Data is lacking indicating AFO effectiveness, which can be used to justify insurance reimbursement for the cost of more efficient mechanisms to produce person-centered AFOs using scanning and 3D printing technology, as is commonly done for individuals with lower extremity amputation requiring a prosthesis. Methods: This study surveyed physical therapists (PTs) via electronic medium to inquire about their knowledge and use of AFO-specific outcome measures (OMs). Results: Of the 124 survey respondents with complete data, only 13 were familiar with any of the following OMs: Orthotic Comfort Score (OCS) (n=1), Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey© (OPUS©) (n=9), Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) (n=8), Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) (n=1). Of those 13, only five PTs used OMs: four used the OPUS© and one used the QUEST 2.0 for AFO assessment with IwCVA. Conclusion: This preliminary study indicates that few PTs are aware of and using AFO-specific OMs that address use, fit, function and inherent properties of the AFO for IwCVA. The most common OMs used assessed functional mobility only at the activity level. Findings suggest a need to develop a comprehensive AFO-specific OM that can be used for multiple neurologic diagnoses to address issues at both the body structure/function and activity level.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".