ArticleJournal of biomechanics2020
Between-session reliability of subject-specific musculoskeletal models of the spine derived from optoelectronic motion capture data.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concurrent Validity of Two Inertial Measurement Unit Pipelines for Estimating Lumbar and Thoracic Kinematics During Lifting Tasks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Metastatic Spine Disease Alters Vertebral Load-To-Strength Ratios in Cancer Patients Compared to Healthy Individuals.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Subject-Specific Musculoskeletal Modeling: The Future of Predicting and Preventing Proximal Junctional Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity.JOR spine · 2025Article
- An Augmented Full-Body Model that Improves Upper Body Tracking and Reduces Dynamic Inconsistency in Complex Motion.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Physiological and Anthropometric Factors Associated With Spine Loading Estimates From Imaging-Based Subject-Specific Musculoskeletal Models.JOR spine · 2025Article
- Modelling Female Breast Motion During Running: Implications of Breast Support on the Spine.European journal of sport science · 2025Article
- The effect of a soft active back support exosuit on trunk motion and thoracolumbar spine loading during squat and stoop lifts.Ergonomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Design of a low-cost force insoles to estimate ground reaction forces during human gait.HardwareX · 2024Article
- Musculoskeletal models determine the effect of a soft active exosuit on muscle activations and forces during lifting and lowering tasks.Journal of biomechanics · 2024Article
- Optical Marker-Based Motion Capture of the Human Spine: A Scoping Review of Study Design and Outcomes.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- An Enhanced Spine Model Validated for Simulating Dynamic Lifting Tasks in OpenSim.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Using inertial measurement units to estimate spine joint kinematics and kinetics during walking and running.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Musculoskeletal spine modeling in large patient cohorts: how morphological individualization affects lumbar load estimation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Variability of intervertebral joint stiffness between specimens and spine levels.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Article
- EMG Validation of a Subject-Specific Thoracolumbar Spine Musculoskeletal Model During Dynamic Activities in Older Adults.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Multibody Models of the Thoracolumbar Spine: A Review on Applications, Limitations, and Challenges.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Towards Single Camera Human 3D-Kinematics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pilot Validation Study of Inertial Measurement Units and Markerless Methods for 3D Neck and Trunk Kinematics during a Simulated Surgery Task.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the between-session reliability of creating subject-specific musculoskeletal models with optoelectronic motion capture data, and using them to estimate spine loading. Nineteen healthy participants aged 24-74 years underwent the same set of measurements on two separate occasions. Retroreflective markers were placed on anatomical regions, including C7, T1, T4, T5, T8, T9, T12 and L1 spinous processes, pelvis, upper and lower limbs, and head. We created full-body musculoskeletal models with detailed thoracolumbar spines, and scaled these to create subject-specific models for each individual and each session. Models were scaled from distances between markers, and spine curvature was adjusted according to marker-estimated measurements. Using these models, we estimated vertebral compressive loading for five different standardized postures: neutral standing, 45˚ trunk flexion, 15˚ trunk extension, 20˚ lateral bend to the right, and 45˚ axial rotation to the right. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement were calculated as measures of between-session reliability and measurement error, respectively. Spine curvature measures showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.79-0.91) and body scaling segments showed fair to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.46-0.95). We found that musculoskeletal models showed mostly excellent between-session reliability to estimate spine loading, with 91% of ICC values > 0.75 for all activities. This information is a necessary precursor for using motion capture data to estimate spine loading from subject-specific musculoskeletal models, and suggests that marker data will deliver reproducible subject-specific models and estimates of spine loading.
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.