Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27173448›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2016

Muscle moment arms and sensitivity analysis of a mouse hindlimb musculoskeletal model.

James P Charles, Ornella Cappellari, Andrew J Spence, Dominic J Wells, John R Hutchinson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. From fibre to function: are we accurately representing muscle architecture and performance?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  19. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

James P CharlesNeuromuscular Diseases Group, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Ornella CappellariNeuromuscular Diseases Group, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Andrew J SpenceStructure and Motion Lab, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.
Dominic J WellsNeuromuscular Diseases Group, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
John R HutchinsonStructure and Motion Lab, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK. jhutchinson@rvc.ac.uk.
Royal Veterinary College · GBTemple University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal modelling has become a valuable tool with which to understand how neural, muscular, skeletal and other tissues are integrated to produce movement. Most musculoskeletal modelling work has to date focused on humans or their close relatives, with few examples of quadrupedal animal limb models. A musculoskeletal model of the mouse hindlimb could have broad utility for questions in medicine, genetics, locomotion and neuroscience. This is due to this species' position as a premier model of human disease, having an array of genetic tools for manipulation of the animal in vivo, and being a small quadruped, a category for which few models exist. Here, the methods used to develop the first three-dimensional (3D) model of a mouse hindlimb and pelvis are described. The model, which represents bones, joints and 39 musculotendon units, was created through a combination of previously gathered muscle architecture data from microdissections, contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography (CT) scanning and digital segmentation. The model allowed muscle moment arms as well as muscle forces to be estimated for each musculotendon unit throughout a range of joint rotations. Moment arm analysis supported the reliability of musculotendon unit placement within the model, and comparison to a previously published rat hindlimb model further supported the model's reliability. A sensitivity analysis performed on both the force-generating parameters and muscle's attachment points of the model indicated that the maximal isometric muscle moment is generally most sensitive to changes in either tendon slack length or the coordinates of insertion, although the degree to which the moment is affected depends on several factors. This model represents the first step in the creation of a fully dynamic 3D computer model of the mouse hindlimb and pelvis that has application to neuromuscular disease, comparative biomechanics and the neuromechanical basis of movement. Capturing the morphology and dynamics of the limb, it enables future dissection of the complex interactions between the nervous and musculoskeletal systems as well as the environment.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, AnimalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone and BonesFemaleHindlimbLocomotionMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMuscle, SkeletalX-Ray Microtomographybiomechanicsmuscle architecturemuscle forcemusculoskeletal anatomyrodent

Identifiers

PMID27173448
PMCPMC5013061
OpenAlexW2379070273

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.