ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Load-Capacity-Constrained Arm-Angle Planning for a Centrally Driven Humanoid Robotic Arm.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents a load-capacity-constrained arm-angle planning method for a centrally driven humanoid robotic arm. Joint-range and singularity constraints are projected into the one-dimensional arm-angle domain to form a geometric feasible set. A static load-capacity constraint is derived from gravity torque, the Jacobian-transpose mapping of a known endpoint load, and individual actuator-torque limits, and is projected into the same domain. Continuous arm-angle values are then selected along a prescribed Cartesian path within the intersection of the geometric and mechanical feasible sets. In a heavy-load simulation, the maximum output-power metric decreased by 13.3%, and the energy value decreased from 30.60 J to 22.95 J (25.0%). In a prototype proof-of-principle test with a 13 N payload (approximately 1.33 kg), each trajectory was executed three times; the controller-recorded shoulder peak was approximately 1.83% lower, and the recorded energy value decreased from 30.378 J to 28.85 J (5.03%). The prototype values are descriptive because run-level statistics and measurement uncertainty are unavailable, and the experiment covers only one payload and one path. The results support the proposed static, load-capacity-aware planning principle for the tested slow-motion conditions but do not establish general performance or real-time suitability.
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.