Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26720096›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2016

Prediction of In Vivo Knee Joint Loads Using a Global Probabilistic Analysis.

Alessandro Navacchia, Casey A Myers, Paul J Rullkoetter, Kevin B Shelburne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reproducibility in modeling and simulation of the knee: Academic, industry, and regulatory perspectives.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Loading and kinematic profiles for patellofemoral durability testing.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alessandro Navacchia
Casey A Myers
Paul J Rullkoetter
Kevin B Shelburne

Funding

A Multi-Scale Finite Element Musculoskeletal Modeling Framework Applied to CurrenR01EB015497 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF DENVER (COLORADO SEMINARY) · PI SHELBURNE, KEVIN B · 2012 to 2015
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB015497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal models are powerful tools that allow biomechanical investigations and predictions of muscle forces not accessible with experiments. A core challenge modelers must confront is validation. Measurements of muscle activity and joint loading are used for qualitative and indirect validation of muscle force predictions. Subject-specific models have reached high levels of complexity and can predict contact loads with surprising accuracy. However, every deterministic musculoskeletal model contains an intrinsic uncertainty due to the high number of parameters not identifiable in vivo. The objective of this work is to test the impact of intrinsic uncertainty in a scaled-generic model on estimates of muscle and joint loads. Uncertainties in marker placement, limb coronal alignment, body segment parameters, Hill-type muscle parameters, and muscle geometry were modeled with a global probabilistic approach (multiple uncertainties included in a single analysis). 5-95% confidence bounds and input/output sensitivities of predicted knee compressive loads and varus/valgus contact moments were estimated for a gait activity of three subjects with telemetric knee implants from the "Grand Challenge Competition." Compressive load predicted for the three subjects showed confidence bounds of 333 ± 248 N, 408 ± 333 N, and 379 ± 244 N when all the sources of uncertainty were included. The measured loads lay inside the predicted 5-95% confidence bounds for 77%, 83%, and 76% of the stance phase. Muscle maximum isometric force, muscle geometry, and marker placement uncertainty most impacted the joint load results. This study demonstrated that identification of these parameters is crucial when subject-specific models are developed.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalUncertaintyArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansKnee JointMusclesPatient-Specific ModelingWalkingWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID26720096
PMCPMC4844089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.