Literature Review on the Optimization of 3D-Printed Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) for Children with Spastic Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review explores the optimization of 3D-printed Ankle Foot Orthoses (AFOs) for children with spastic cerebral palsy (CP), focusing on digital design, material selection, mechanical validation, and user-centered evaluation. Recent studies highlight the benefits of thermoplastic materials—such as TPU, PETG, and PLA—for enhancing comfort and durability, particularly when optimized using the Taguchi Design of Experiment (DOE) method. Structural performance is assessed through Finite Element Analysis (FEA), while design selection is often supported by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient satisfaction is commonly measured using standardized tools such as the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Despite these advances, research that integrates these methods remains limited. This review highlights the need for bridging engineering optimization with user feedback to improve clinical effectiveness and customization of orthotic devices.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".