ArticlePloS one2026
Development and application of a prosthetist-specific rectification template based on artificial intelligence for the fabrication of transfemoral prosthetic sockets.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prosthetic socket is the most critical component of a lower limb prosthesis, requiring precise customization to the individual's residual limb. This study presents proof-of-concept for a novel artificial intelligence (AI)-driven rectification template for transfemoral sockets tailored to a single prosthetist. Using a dataset of nine persons with transfemoral amputation, the study workflow required the manual casting and 3D scanning of unrectified and rectified plaster positives, anatomical landmark identification, and unsupervised training of an algorithm using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The AI captured both explicit and implicit rectification strategies, generating an average rectification template and synergistic modes of variation. Validation was conducted via a leave-one-out approach, comparing AI-generated versus manually crafted rectified positives using clinically-relevant metrics: perimeter and volume differences. The first four PCA modes explained 78% of rectification variability, with key modifications observed in distal and medial regions. Volume differences between AI and manually rectified positives were within clinically acceptable limits for all participants, with 44% rated "good" and 56% "acceptable". This proof-of-concept provides a new perspective on the application of AI to replicate prosthetist-specific rectification strategies for transfemoral sockets. It may potentially help streamline fabrication by capturing both explicit and implicit prosthetist knowledge. The approach may be useful in clinical training, documentation, and socket fabrication, particularly in resource-limited settings, and may contribute to more consistent and efficient prosthetics care.
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.