ArticleProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine2017
Sensitivity of a juvenile subject-specific musculoskeletal model of the ankle joint to the variability of operator-dependent input.
Article in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Subject-Specific Spino-Pelvic Models Reliably Measure Spinal Kinematics During Seated Forward Bending in Adult Spinal Deformity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Linking Joint Impairment and Gait Biomechanics in Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2019Article
- Pre-operative prediction of soft tissue balancing in knee arthoplasty part 1: Effect of surgical parameters during level walking.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subject-specific musculoskeletal modelling is especially useful in the study of juvenile and pathological subjects. However, such methodologies typically require a human operator to identify key landmarks from medical imaging data and are thus affected by unavoidable variability in the parameters defined and subsequent model predictions. The aim of this study was to thus quantify the inter- and intra-operator repeatability of a subject-specific modelling methodology developed for the analysis of subjects with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Three operators each created subject-specific musculoskeletal foot and ankle models via palpation of bony landmarks, adjustment of geometrical muscle points and definition of joint coordinate systems. These models were then fused to a generic Arnold lower limb model for each of three modelled patients. The repeatability of each modelling operation was found to be comparable to those previously reported for the modelling of healthy, adult subjects. However, the inter-operator repeatability of muscle point definition was significantly greater than intra-operator repeatability ( p < 0.05) and predicted ankle joint contact forces ranged by up to 24% and 10% of the peak force for the inter- and intra-operator analyses, respectively. Similarly, the maximum inter- and intra-operator variations in muscle force output were 64% and 23% of peak force, respectively. Our results suggest that subject-specific modelling is operator dependent at the foot and ankle, with the definition of muscle geometry the most significant source of output uncertainty. The development of automated procedures to prevent the misplacement of crucial muscle points should therefore be considered a particular priority for those developing subject-specific models.
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.