Je zei:
Thesis structure - 2.pdf
PDF
I've got to write an IEEE style paper about my thesis to put as an extended abstract, but as i have very limited time i find this a very dautnintg task, finding it difficult to choose what to menton and what not to mention and how to structure the whole, i've provided you with the draft of my current thesis hoping you can assit me in this task


ChatGPT zei:
Based on your thesis draft, here's a clear overview of the key elements we can use to craft your IEEE-style extended abstract efficiently and with focus.

🔍 What Your Thesis Is About
You are developing a functional Ankle-Foot Orthosis (AFO) using Additive Manufacturing (AM), aiming to create personalized, clinically useful, and commercially relevant solutions. The work focuses on modularity, strength optimization, and aligning design innovation with orthotist and patient needs, within a translational research framework (T0–T1).

🎯 Main Research Question
How can additive manufacturing be leveraged to deliver functional, personalized AFOs that create clinical and commercial value for both orthotists and end users?

🧪 Methodology
Structured according to product development frameworks (e.g. Ulrich & Eppinger).

Follows four phases: Identify, Invent, Embodiment Design, and Deliver.

Combines:

Clinical landscape research (conditions, gait, stakeholder needs)

Innovation framing and concept screening

D&E brainstorming and iterative concept refinement

Final prototype testing and evaluation (strength & assembly tests)

Incorporates stakeholder input (Materialise, orthotists, and academic advisors) at various stages.

🔧 Key Contributions and Findings
Developed a modular AM-AFO prototype that prioritizes clinical functionality and manufacturability.

Integrated two AM-driven USPs:

Material-efficient strength optimization

Customizable modular geometry for orthotic adaptability

Prototype shows adequate mechanical strength and assembly feasibility in initial tests.

Demonstrated potential for platform-based service delivery of customized AFOs.

🧠 Conclusion and Impact
Your work bridges the gap between technical feasibility and clinical relevance in AM-AFO design. It sets a foundation for future translation into clinical settings (T1), aligning with real-world stakeholder goals and showcasing how AM can transform orthotic care through customization, rapid iteration, and modular manufacturing.

Would you like me to now turn this outline into a polished IEEE-style extended abstract, around 250–500 words, formatted according to standard structure (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion)?

Je zei:
Please help me figure out what I have to focus on, What should be in my introduction, my background and or literature review, what should i focus on in my results and discussion section etc. please help me draft a very good framework for us to start writing in
ChatGPT zei:
Absolutely — let’s create a clear, focused IEEE-style extended abstract framework tailored to your thesis. Given your topic and time constraints, the goal is to communicate value quickly and clearly, while structuring your content around what matters most: innovation, method, relevance, and results.

⚙️ STRUCTURE FOR YOUR IEEE EXTENDED ABSTRACT (Approx. 1–2 pages)
IEEE extended abstracts typically follow a compressed version of a full paper. Here’s a high-impact, tailored outline with focus areas for each section:

1. Title
Functional Modular Ankle-Foot Orthosis Design Through Additive Manufacturing: Toward Translational Personalization

2. Abstract (150–250 words)
(You’ll write this last, but it’s the first thing people see.)

Include:

Motivation: Why this problem matters (e.g. limited personalization in current AFO care).

Aim: Your main research question or design goal.

Method: Overall design approach (e.g. iterative, stakeholder-driven, modular AM development).

Results: Highlights from your prototype testing or concept development.

Contribution: What’s new or valuable here?

🟨 Focus on communicating:

Real clinical need

AM as enabler

Modularity & personalization

Stakeholder value

3. Introduction (1 short paragraph)
Purpose: Set the stage. Define the core challenge & your thesis aim.

🟩 Include:

What AFOs are and why they matter

The issue: current AFOs are poorly personalized, slow to iterate, and not AM-optimized

The opportunity: AM can offer functional, modular, and personalized solutions

Your aim: develop a functional AM-AFO with modularity and personalization at its core

4. Background / Literature Review (1 paragraph)
Purpose: Show understanding of current AFO design & AM context.

🟦 Include:

Brief overview of traditional AFO design & limitations

Prior work on 3D-printed orthoses (highlight gaps: often conceptual, not clinically validated or modular)

Translational research model (T0-T1) — explain where your work fits

Role of orthotists and platform-based delivery as a future value pathway

5. Methodology (1–2 paragraphs)
Purpose: Explain how you tackled the problem.

🟧 Include:

Your design process: Identify → Invent → Embodiment Design → Deliver

Key methods: clinical/stakeholder input, D&E brainstorming, prototype development

Concept selection via stakeholder-driven criteria (e.g. strength, personalization, modularity)

Final prototype testing methods: strength tests, assembly evaluations

🟨 Keep focus on: Method as a means to clinically relevant, testable innovation — not just technical process.

6. Results (1 paragraph)
Purpose: What did you achieve? What does your prototype do?

🟥 Include:

Developed a modular AM-AFO prototype

Integrated 2 AM-driven unique selling points:

Material-efficient strength optimization

Customizable modular components

Testing shows sufficient strength and functional viability

Supported by orthotist feedback on practicality and use cases

7. Discussion (1 paragraph)
Purpose: Reflect on what the results mean.

🟪 Include:

Strengths of your approach: stakeholder alignment, modularity, testable design

Limitations: early-stage testing, no clinical trial yet

Translational potential (T1): pathway toward clinical adoption and platform delivery

Future work: refining fit, comfort, and user-centered iteration

8. Conclusion (2–3 sentences)
Purpose: Wrap up with clarity.

🟫 Include:

Clear restatement of contribution: a modular, AM-based AFO aligned with real needs

Significance: builds toward a future of personalized orthotics with clinical and commercial viability

Call to action or outlook: the foundation is laid — next steps are clinical validation and implementation

Optional: Keywords
E.g.: Ankle-foot orthosis, additive manufacturing, modular design, personalization, translational research, orthotic innovation.

Would you like me to help you write the actual content section by section now, starting with the Introduction? Or would you prefer I draft the entire extended abstract at once based on this outline?

Je zei:
Design of a stiffness-adjustable ankle-foot orthosis and its effect on ankle joint - kopie.pdf
PDF
the influence of ankle-foot orthosis stiffness on walking performance in indivduas with lower limb impairments.pdf
PDF
can you please take inspiration from these other papers
ChatGPT zei:
Thanks for uploading the references. To clarify, you asked me to “take inspiration” from the papers. Could you specify what you’d like me to do with them?

For example:

Should I rewrite a specific section of your thesis in the style or structure of these papers?

Are you looking for inspiration for a discussion, introduction, or methodology section?

Do you want help summarizing or citing these papers for your literature review?

Let me know what part you’re working on and how I can help you draw from these papers effectively.

Je zei:
Can the background come after methodology in this paper?
ChatGPT zei:
In an IEEE-style extended abstract or conference paper, the background should not come after the methodology. Here's why:

🧭 Standard Structure for IEEE-Style Papers
The typical order is:

Introduction

Background / Related Work

Methodology

Results

Discussion (optional or merged with Results)

Conclusion

✅ Why Background Comes Before Methodology
The background provides necessary context—what has been done before, what gaps exist, and why your work matters.

The methodology explains how you address that gap.

Readers (especially reviewers) expect to first understand the "why" and "what others have done" before they read the "how you did it."

🔍 In Your Case:
The background should:

Briefly summarize existing AFO solutions and their limitations

Highlight gaps in stiffness tuning, modularity, or AM-based solutions

Introduce the need for your specific approach (e.g. personalized AM-AFOs)

Then your methodology naturally follows as your solution to that context.

Would you like me to draft a background section inspired by the tone and structure of the papers you uploaded, but tailored to your own project?







Je zei:
i'm terribly stuck at writing my extended abstract, i hope you can help giude me through it step by step
ChatGPT zei:
You're not alone—writing an extended abstract can be hard, especially when you're deep in your thesis and unsure what to include or leave out. The good news is you’ve already done most of the hard thinking through your thesis. Now we just need to extract and condense the essence, step by step.

🧭 Here’s how we’ll tackle it — one clear step at a time:
🔶 STEP 1: Title
We’ll finalize this at the end, but for now, let’s use a working one:

“Modular Design of a Functional Ankle-Foot Orthosis Using Additive Manufacturing: Toward Personalized Orthotic Care”

🔶 STEP 2: Write a One-Sentence Answer to Each of These Questions
Let’s begin by filling these in together (just write your answers here; I’ll help shape them after):

What problem or limitation in current AFO design are you solving?
(E.g. “Current AFOs lack personalization and are not optimized for AM manufacturing.”)

What is your project’s specific aim or research question?
(E.g. “To develop and test a modular, strength-optimized AFO using AM techniques, aligned with clinical and commercial value.”)

What method did you use to achieve that?
(E.g. “We followed a 4-phase product development method involving clinical analysis, stakeholder input, iterative prototyping, and mechanical testing.”)

What is the most important result or innovation you achieved?
(E.g. “We developed a modular prototype integrating two AM-specific features, which passed initial strength and assembly tests.”)

Why does this matter? What is the contribution to the field?
(E.g. “This prototype demonstrates how AM can support clinically relevant personalization while supporting commercial scalability.”)

Once you fill these in, we’ll have the core of your abstract and can begin building each section:

🔹 Introduction (problem + aim)

🔹 Background (related work + gap)

🔹 Methods (your process)

🔹 Results (what you achieved)

🔹 Conclusion (why it matters)

👉 Just answer the 5 questions above in your own words, even roughly. I’ll turn that into a strong draft for us to refine. Ready?







Je zei:
let's start with the things i do already have, i have a title and authors etc: Design and development of a modular ankle foot orthosis with the aid of additive manufacturing
Keywords: AFO, AM, 3D printing, customization, FEA, modular design, prototyping
Author: Ruben Verscheure(1)
Supervisors: Yannick Christiaens (1), Elias Rosseau (2)
 1Ghent University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Industrial System and Product Design, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
2Materialise NV, Design and Engineering department, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
next up what am  i designing for, i want to introduce lower limb muscle weakness and AFOs in general and then set the scene for AM in medical contexts, then set the research questoin and goals for the thesis, but here i already have difficulty before i even move on to the methdolody, because do i already mention the shortcomings of am afos as this actually only comes after my research into market available  afos, and deskresearch



ChatGPT zei:
This is a perfect place to start. You’ve already got a solid title, clear keywords, and an intuitive structure in mind. Let's break this down step by step — starting with the Introduction, which will lead smoothly into Background and eventually into Methodology.

🔶 STEP 3: INTRODUCTION (First Paragraph)
The goal of the introduction is to set the clinical and technological context and establish the motivation for your project — not to dive deep into results or specifics.

You want to:

Introduce lower limb weakness as a clinical problem

Explain what AFOs are and their role

Set the stage for AM in medical devices

Introduce your research aim and question

✍️ Suggested Structure (with Prompts You Can Fill In)
Let’s write it together. Here's a template with blanks based on your intention:

[Draft Introduction – fill in or edit in your tone]

Lower limb muscle weakness is a common clinical challenge resulting from a range of neuromuscular or musculoskeletal conditions. It often leads to impaired gait patterns, reduced mobility, and increased risk of falls. To restore functional walking and improve daily independence, Ankle Foot Orthoses (AFOs) are frequently prescribed. These devices aim to stabilize the ankle, support foot clearance, and assist with push-off during walking.

While traditional AFOs are typically manufactured through labor-intensive processes such as thermoforming, Additive Manufacturing (AM) is increasingly explored as a means to enhance customization, streamline production, and enable design innovation in orthotic care. In particular, AM holds promise for enabling personalized, modular AFOs that can better match individual patient needs and clinical requirements.

This thesis explores the potential of AM for the design and development of a functional, modular AFO. The project aims to investigate how additive manufacturing can support the creation of strength-optimized, customizable AFO components that not only meet clinical performance demands but also align with orthotist workflows and future scalability.

Would you like me to now shape this into a clean IEEE intro paragraph, or do you want to tweak any of the above first with your own phrasing?

Also: once this paragraph is settled, we’ll move to the Background next — where we’ll place the desk research and analysis of current AM-AFO limitations (at a high level).







Je zei:
i'm not looking for you to start writing any text just yet i'm really trying to get the rough structure down so how do we proceed from the research question?


ChatGPT zei:
Excellent — you're being methodical, which is exactly right for this kind of writing. You're asking: once I state the research question and aim in the introduction, what comes next in the extended abstract?

Let’s map out the high-level structure you should follow, step by step, and what each section should cover in your specific case.

🧱 STRUCTURE FOR YOUR EXTENDED ABSTRACT (with your thesis context in mind)
1. Title, Author(s), Affiliations, Keywords
✔️ You already have this done.

2. Introduction
✔️ GOAL: Introduce the clinical need, define AFOs, explain AM’s relevance, and end with your aim and research question.

✅ Ends with:

Your aim: e.g. “This thesis aims to design and test a modular, functional AFO enabled by additive manufacturing.”

Your research question: (Can be included explicitly or implied.)

3. Background / Related Work
✔️ GOAL: Contextualize the project by summarizing relevant knowledge and gaps.

In your case:

Brief summary of conventional AFO limitations

Short discussion of what AM has enabled so far in AFOs

But: existing AM-AFOs are often prototypes, not clinically grounded or modular

Point out the gap your work addresses: lack of AM-AFOs that are modular, strength-optimized, and ready for orthotist integration

🔸 Yes, you can mention the shortcomings of existing AM AFOs here, even if your own research into them came later in your thesis. You’re reporting what you now know, not the order you discovered it in.

4. Methodology
✔️ GOAL: Describe the process you followed to address the research question.

In your case, this includes:

The 4 phases (Identify → Invent → Embodiment Design → Deliver)

Desk research, stakeholder engagement

D&E brainstorm + prototyping + FEA + testing

Prototype specs and design decisions

(Keep it high-level — save details for Results)

5. Results
✔️ GOAL: Present your key outcomes.

Final concept description

2 AM-driven USPs

Strength and assembly testing results

How modularity was achieved

🔸 Don’t include long test data or deep numbers — just highlight the outcome and what it shows.

6. Discussion
✔️ GOAL: Reflect on meaning and limitations

Why your prototype matters

What limitations it still has (e.g. comfort, wearability)

Clinical and commercial implications

Where it could go next (e.g. clinical trials, integration into orthotic workflows)

7. Conclusion
✔️ GOAL: Reaffirm the contribution clearly.

1–3 sentences max. Re-state what you did and why it matters.

🧭 Next Step: Once your research question is written and placed at the end of your Introduction, you move directly to the Background, using the flow above.
Would you like a visual map or bullet checklist of this structure for reference as you write?







Je zei:
Thesis structure - 2.pdf
PDF
okay then maybe let's dive deeper into background because this is indeed state of the art knowledge, should i even call it state of the art or background, i'm feeding you my thesis again so you can help judge what shuould come before methodology 


ChatGPT zei:
Great — now that I’ve reviewed the updated thesis structure and content, here’s how to think about your background section for the extended abstract, and whether it should be called "background" or "state of the art."

✅ Should You Call It Background or State of the Art?
For an extended abstract, especially in IEEE style, use "Background".

"State of the art" is typically used in longer research papers or review sections to highlight cutting-edge knowledge.

In an extended abstract, the reader expects a concise background that outlines:

What’s currently done (status quo)

What’s wrong with that (gaps/limitations)

Where your work fits in (your unique angle)

So stick with Background — it's simpler, clearer, and totally appropriate for your audience.

🔍 What Should Go in Your Background Section?
This is where you compress Chapters 1.1 to 4.2 of your thesis into 1 concise paragraph.

Here’s what to prioritize in your context:

✅ 1. Brief Summary of Lower Limb Weakness and AFOs
Introduce the medical need: Lower limb muscle weakness affects gait and quality of life.

AFOs support these patients, but current solutions often lack personalization, comfort, and long-term usability.

✅ 2. AFO Design and Fabrication Challenges
Traditional AFOs are static, one-size-fits-some.

Even custom AFOs involve labor-intensive manual processes with limited adaptability.

✅ 3. Rise of AM and Mass Personalization
AM enables mass customization and digital workflows.

Growing role in orthotics: faster, leaner, more adaptable designs.

✅ 4. Limitations of Current AM AFOs
Most are either conceptual, lack clinical grounding, or don’t address modularity and stakeholder needs.

There is a lack of AM AFOs that are strength-optimized, customizable, and manufacturable at scale.

✅ 5. Define the Opportunity / Knowledge Gap
There is a need for clinically relevant, customizable, modular AFOs that leverage the strengths of AM while aligning with orthotist workflows and patient needs.

If you'd like, we can now move on to:

Finalizing the phrasing of the research question and aim at the end of your Introduction

Then drafting a concise Background section based on the 5 points above

Would you prefer to do one more planning step, or move into actual writing?







Je zei:
okay no very good so now we've got introduction and background down, let's move on to methodology


ChatGPT zei:
Perfect — let’s move on to the Methodology section.

🎯 Purpose of Methodology in an Extended Abstract
In an IEEE-style extended abstract, the methodology is concise and high-level. You're not writing a full lab report — you're explaining how you approached the design challenge, especially how your process was:

Systematic

User- and context-informed

Suitable for a medical device project

You’re showing that the work is credible and reproducible, but without going deep into technical substeps or justification for each method.

🧱 Structure for Your Methodology Section
You can break it into 3 concise parts:

✅ 1. Overall Approach
Briefly state what framework(s) guided the project.

This thesis followed a contextual medical product development framework based on the Stanford Biodesign process and adapted to the requirements of orthotic care.

🟨 If space allows: mention the 3 stages you completed (Identify, Invent, Develop) and why that scope makes sense (e.g. T0 stage, early prototyping).

✅ 2. Key Activities
Describe the types of research and design activities you did in each phase — not every detail, just the categories.

Identify: Clinical literature review, stakeholder interviews, condition analysis, survey of patient needs, competitor analysis of AFOs

Invent: Brainstorming, early sketching, concept framing, strength optimization, early modular ideas

Develop: CAD modeling, FEA simulation, prototyping, assembly testing, mechanical evaluation

Activities included a clinical context review, user and expert interviews, concept screening, finite element analysis (FEA), and mechanical testing.

✅ 3. Stakeholder Integration
Show that real-world constraints and expertise guided the project.

Orthotists, patients, and experts at Materialise contributed to requirement setting, concept selection, and testing decisions throughout the process.

🔁 Optional Addition (if space permits):
If you want to briefly mention the two AM-driven USPs guiding your design criteria (customizable modular geometry + strength optimization), you can hint at that here to bridge into Results.

✅ Summary: What Your Methodology Should Communicate
What to include	What to avoid
Design and research process used	Detailed descriptions of every prototype
The frameworks that shaped the process	CAD software specifics unless critical
Stakeholder involvement	Full test protocols or equations
Link to final outcome	Excessive references or citations

Would you like a draft paragraph next based on this structure, or would you prefer to try summarizing it first in your own words and then I help polish?







Je zei:
let's just briefly move back to before the methodology, what were you saying about a new research question, do i need one different from the one in the thesis focussing on the identified gap?


ChatGPT zei:
Excellent question — and you’re absolutely right to pause and ask this before moving forward.

🎯 Should You Use a Different Research Question in the Extended Abstract?
✅ Short answer: No, you don’t need a new one, but…
You might want to slightly rephrase or tighten your thesis research question to make it fit the tone and focus of the extended abstract — which is more condensed and design-driven.

📌 Your Current Thesis Research Question:
“How can an additive manufacturing (AM) based ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) enable clinicians to provide patient-specific customization and improved value to the end user of the AFO?”

This is a solid and relevant question, especially for a thesis. It captures:

Clinical relevance

Stakeholder involvement

Value creation

AM-driven customization

🛠 Why you might adapt it slightly for the abstract:
Abstracts are often tighter, more solution-oriented, and focused on the product outcome.

They should point to what you did, not just what you asked.

✏️ Suggested abstract-ready version:
"This work investigates how additive manufacturing can enable the design of a modular, patient-specific ankle-foot orthosis that supports clinical workflows and improves end-user value."

OR, more directly:

"This project explores how a modular, AM-enabled AFO can support personalized orthotic care and align with the practical needs of clinicians and patients."

So in sum:

Keep the core of your question

Just adapt the phrasing if needed to match the style of the abstract

You don’t need a new research question — just a version that's more concise, aim-focused, and product-connected

Would you like help picking the exact phrasing to include at the end of your Introduction or Background, or do you feel ready to move forward with Methodology now?







Je zei:
very well, now come the big questions: what comes after the methodology part making sure i focus on my main outcomes


ChatGPT zei:
You’re absolutely on track. After Methodology, you move into what is arguably the most important part of your extended abstract:

🔶 Next Up: Results
(And optionally, Discussion — but in extended abstracts, this is often merged into Results.)

🎯 The Goal Here:
To highlight your main design outcomes and show what you achieved — with just enough technical and functional detail to make the contribution clear and credible.

You're not just listing results — you're showing what value your approach created.

🧱 Structure of the Results Section (in your case):
Here’s a results structure tailored to your project:

✅ 1. Final Concept Overview
Briefly state that your process led to the design and development of a modular, functional AFO prototype, enabled by AM.

Say what the prototype consists of (core components: strut, bracket, cuff)

Emphasize modularity as a deliberate and valuable outcome

✅ 2. Unique AM-Driven Features (USPs)
Highlight the two main innovations you achieved:

Strength optimization via FEA-informed design

Customizable modular structure that supports clinician workflows and adaptability

📌 This part is crucial. It ties back directly to your thesis aim.

✅ 3. Test Outcomes (What Worked)
Summarize the key validation steps:

Mechanical testing results (e.g., strength of strut/bracket combination met functional thresholds)

Assembly and disassembly feasibility

Indications that the AFO can meet functional gait demands

You don’t need full data or graphs — just core proof points to support your claim that this design is viable.

✅ 4. Design Relevance
Mention (briefly) that the outcomes were evaluated with stakeholder criteria in mind — showing the prototype isn’t just a technical demo but built for real use.

✅ Optional: Discussion or Final Reflection
If you have room or prefer to separate it:

Briefly note limitations (e.g., no clinical testing yet)

Mention future potential: integration into clinical practice, commercial viability, next design iteration

🧠 Summary: After Methodology, Focus On:
Section	Focus
Results	What did you build, what are its defining features, and how did it perform?
Discussion (optional)	What does this mean? Why does it matter? What are next steps or limits?

Would you like to sketch out the main bullet points for your results now so we can turn them into a paragraph next? I can prompt you to identify what’s most important if that’s helpful.







Je zei:
yes i'd like you to broadly expand on results, making sure that we indeed start with how i ended up at the final concept before moving on to the other things you described


ChatGPT zei:
Perfect — here’s a structured broad expansion of your Results section, tailored to your project and writing goals. This outline keeps the flow tight and narrative-driven while showcasing your main contributions.

🔷 RESULTS – Expanded Structure and Content
✅ 1. Converging Toward the Final Concept
After exploring the clinical landscape, patient needs, and orthotic design constraints, your design process gradually converged toward a modular AFO architecture.

You selected this direction because it offered a promising balance between:

Clinical adaptability (fit, stiffness, condition-specific needs)

Manufacturability (AM-friendliness, scalability)

Personalization potential (custom geometry, targeted optimization)

🟨 Key decisions:

Shift away from rigid, one-piece orthoses toward interfacing components (strut, bracket, cuff)

Modular interfaces allow tailored tuning and partial replacements

Design choices were informed by stakeholder interviews, competitor analysis, and early screening against feasibility and strategic acceptance criteria

✅ 2. Prototype Description
The final prototype consists of:

A strength-optimized strut, designed using FEA and tested for stiffness and mechanical failure modes

A bracket that forms the shoe interface, optimized for secure yet replaceable fixation

A cuff and strut interface designed for controlled compliance and ease of donning/doffing

The modular system allows the orthotist to:

Adjust the orthosis configuration based on user needs

Replace individual parts instead of the whole orthosis

Work with a semi-customized inventory of components, paving the way for platform-based orthotic delivery

✅ 3. Additive Manufacturing–Driven USPs
Your prototype integrates two additive manufacturing–specific innovations:

1. Strength Optimization

The strut was iteratively refined using FEA to match stiffness and force requirements

Testing confirmed the strut met expected load-bearing thresholds, showing strong correlation with digital predictions

Design minimizes material usage while maintaining function — a hallmark of effective AM

2. Customizable Modularity

Modular interfaces were digitally designed for adaptability, enabling rapid adaptation for different patients

Geometry is tunable in CAD and ready for personalized digital workflows

Clinician input shaped features that improve practical use, replacement, and adjustment

✅ 4. Validation and Testing
To verify design feasibility:

Physical prototypes were fabricated using high-performance AM polymers

Mechanical testing was performed on strut and bracket configurations

Assembly testing confirmed alignment tolerances, fit accuracy, and general usability

Final prototype demonstrated robust mechanical integrity and clinically relevant functionality

While no clinical testing was performed in this phase, all components were benchmarked against preclinical mechanical expectations.

✅ 5. Stakeholder Alignment
Orthotist feedback confirmed the value of modularity for maintenance and fitting

The solution aligns with Materialise’s service delivery model: modularity enables scalable customization and service-based orthotic care

The outcome represents a viable T0–T1 bridge, combining proof-of-concept engineering with clinical applicability

Let me know if you'd like to move on to condensing this into a clean paragraph for your extended abstract, or if you want to draft the Discussion/Conclusion part next.







Je zei:
yes please draft the discussion part next


ChatGPT zei:
Absolutely. Here's a Discussion section draft tailored to your extended abstract — concise, reflective, and forward-looking, as is standard for IEEE-style submissions.

🔷 DISCUSSION (Draft for Extended Abstract)
The development of this modular, AM-based AFO demonstrates how additive manufacturing can support not just personalization, but also more flexible, maintainable orthotic solutions aligned with clinical practice. The project validates the potential of modular design to better accommodate evolving patient needs, extend product life cycles, and integrate more smoothly into orthotist workflows.

By focusing on strength-optimized geometries and component modularity, the prototype achieves a balance between functional performance and customization potential — both critical in transitioning AM from experimental concepts to real-world clinical tools. However, as a proof-of-concept developed within a T0 research phase, the solution has not yet been clinically tested. Future work is needed to validate comfort, long-term wearability, and dynamic gait performance across patient populations.

Nevertheless, the concept offers a compelling direction for platform-based orthotic delivery, where AM enables rapid adaptation without sacrificing reliability. The results lay a foundation for translating design innovation into measurable clinical and commercial value.

This version stays within extended abstract norms — high-level, but clearly linked to your outcomes and next steps. Would you like to now move on to a draft of the Conclusion, or circle back to polish earlier sections into a full flowing abstract?







Je zei:
i meant drafting as in bullet points as you did before


ChatGPT zei:
Ah, got it! Let’s structure the Discussion section in bullet points first, just like we did with the Results. This way, we keep things clear and focused before turning it into a polished paragraph.

🔷 DISCUSSION – Structured Bullet Points
✅ 1. Reflection on Contribution
The final design shows that modular, AM-based AFOs are feasible and can be tailored to both user needs and orthotist workflows.

Demonstrates how design for modularity can improve adaptability, maintenance, and clinical usability compared to traditional one-piece AFOs.

✅ 2. Translational Potential
This proof-of-concept represents an important step within the T0–T1 phase of translational health research.

The design aligns with future platform-based orthotic delivery models, where semi-standardized modules can be adapted to patients through digital workflows.

✅ 3. Limitations
No clinical testing was performed — focus was on preclinical feasibility (strength, fit, assembly).

Comfort, wearability, and performance in dynamic gait still need to be evaluated in clinical settings.

✅ 4. Future Work
Validate dynamic use: walking trials, pressure mapping, user feedback.

Expand customization workflows (e.g. size scaling, fit adjustments, stiffness libraries).

Explore integration into orthotist and manufacturer pipelines, possibly through service-based models.

✅ 5. Broader Implications
Reinforces the role of AM in creating more patient-centered, scalable medical devices.

Offers a practical example of how early-stage prototyping can bridge the gap between innovation and clinical application in orthotic care.

Let me know when you're ready and I can turn this into a fluent paragraph — or we can move on to drafting the Conclusion bullet points next.