Predicting Individualized Joint Kinematics Over Continuous Variations of Walking, Running, and Stair Climbing

Goal: Accounting for gait individuality is important to positive outcomes with wearable robots, but manually tuning multi-activity models is time-consuming and not viable in a clinic. Generalizations can possibly be made to predict gait individuality in unobserved conditions. Methods: Kinematic individuality—how one person's joint angles differ from the group—is quantified for every subject, joint, ambulation mode (walking, running, stair ascent, and stair descent), and intramodal task (speed, incline) in an open-access dataset with 10 able-bodied subjects. Four N-way ANOVAs test how prediction methods affect the fit to experimental data between and within ambulation modes. We test whether walking individuality (measured at a single speed on level ground) carries across modes, or whether a mode-specific prediction (based on a single task for each mode) is significantly more effective. Results: Kinematic individualization improves fit across joint and task if we consider each mode separately. Across all modes, tasks, and joints, modal individualization improved the fit in 81% of trials, improving the fit on average by 4.3${}^{\circ }$ across the gait cycle. This was statistically significant at all joints for walking and running, and half the joints for stair ascent/descent. Conclusions: For walking and running, kinematic individuality can be easily generalized within mode, but the trends are mixed on stairs depending on joint

Shortcomings of human-in-the-loop optimization of an ankle-foot prosthesis emulator: a case series.

Human-in-the-loop optimization allows for individualized device control based on measured human performance. This technique has been used to produce large reductions in energy expenditure during walking with exoskeletons but has not yet been applied to prosthetic devices. In this series of case studies, we applied human-in-the-loop optimization to the control of an active ankle-foot prosthesis used by participants with unilateral transtibial amputation. We optimized the parameters of five control architectures that captured aspects of successful exoskeletons and commercial prostheses, but none resulted in significantly lower metabolic rate than generic control. In one control architecture, we increased the exposure time per condition by a factor of five, but the optimized controller still resulted in higher metabolic rate. Finally, we optimized for self-reported comfort instead of metabolic rate, but the resulting controller was not preferred. There are several reasons why human-in-the-loop optimization may have failed for people with amputation. Control architecture is an unlikely cause given the variety of controllers tested. The lack of effect likely relates to changes in motor adaptation, learning, or objectives in people with amputation. Future work should investigate these potential causes to determine whether human-in-the-loop optimization for prostheses could be successful

Shortcomings of human-in-the-loop optimization of an ankle-foot prosthesis emulator: a case series

Human-in-the-loop optimization allows for individualized device control based on measured human performance. This technique has been used to produce large reductions in energy expenditure during walking with exoskeletons but has not yet been applied to prosthetic devices. In this series of case studies, we applied human-in-the-loop optimization to the control of an active ankle-foot prosthesis used by participants with unilateral transtibial amputation. We optimized the parameters of five control architectures that captured aspects of successful exoskeletons and commercial prostheses, but none resulted in significantly lower metabolic rate than generic control. In one control architecture, we increased the exposure time per condition by a factor of five, but the optimized controller still resulted in higher metabolic rate. Finally, we optimized for self-reported comfort instead of metabolic rate, but the resulting controller was not preferred. There are several reasons why human-in-the-loop optimization may have failed for people with amputation. Control architecture is an unlikely cause given the variety of controllers tested. The lack of effect likely relates to changes in motor adaptation, learning, or objectives in people with amputation. Future work should investigate these potential causes to determine whether human-in-the-loop optimization for prostheses could be successful

Human Perception of Wrist Flexion and Extension Torque During Upper and Lower Extremity Movement

Human user study (N = 10) of wrist torque perception in various movement conditions</p

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m(2), and duration of T2DM was 9.3 ± 8.2 years. The qualifying ACS was a myocardial infarction in 83% and unstable angina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. CONCLUSION: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk

Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUN

Alirocumab and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUN