ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Mechanical Design, Control, and Laboratory Test of a Two-Degrees-of-Freedom Elbow Prosthesis.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents the design and experimental testing of a two-degrees-of-freedom (2DOF) elbow prosthesis prototype designed to replicate the movement patterns of a native or normal human elbow. Two methods of the control of the prosthesis, namely, the proportional-integral-derivative method (PID; a well-established method) and a combination of sliding mode control with a time base generator strategy (SMC + TBG; an advanced method), were compared on the basis of various performance metrics of the prosthesis, as obtained in laboratory tests. Among these metrics were the angular displacement and velocity as a function of time. The mechanical design combined 3D-printed components with custom-designed joints, featuring a worm gear transmission with a crown gear for flexion-extension, enhanced by torsional springs, and a pinion gear with a crown gear for pronation-supination and control. Sensors for voltage and current data acquisition enabled real-time monitoring and control. The prosthesis was tested in the laboratory with a range of motion of 100-120° for flexion-extension, 50° for supination, and 75° for pronation, demonstrating the adaptability of the actuators and validating their autonomy through battery-powered operation. The results showed that control using SMC + TBG resulted in biomimetic patterns for angular displacement and angular velocity of the prosthesis, whereas control using PID did not. Thus, the prosthesis with control provided using an SMC + TBG strategy may have been promised for use by people who have undergone transhumeral amputation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.