Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34041519›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2021

A Method to Compare Heterogeneous Types of Bone and Cartilage Meshes.

Nynke B Rooks, Marco T Y Schneider, Ahmet Erdemir, Jason P Halloran, Peter J Laz, Kevin B Shelburne, Donald R Hume, Carl W Imhauser, William Zaylor, Shady Elmasry and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Nynke B RooksAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Level 6/70 Symonds Street, Auckland, Grafton 1010, New Zealand.
Marco T Y SchneiderAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Level 6/70 Symonds Street, Auckland, Grafton 1010, New Zealand.
Ahmet ErdemirDepartment of Biomedical Engineering & Computational Biomodeling (CoBi) Core, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue (ND20), Cleveland, OH 44195.
Jason P HalloranApplied Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Shock Physics, Washington State University, 1455 East College Avenue, Spokane, Pullman, WA 99164.
Peter J LazDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, 2155 East Wesley Avenue, Denver, CO 80210; Center for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, University of Denver, 2155 East Wesley Avenue, Denver, CO 80210.
Kevin B ShelburneDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, 2155 East Wesley Avenue, Denver, CO 80210; Center for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, University of Denver, 2155 East Wesley Avenue, Denver, CO 80210.
Donald R HumeDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, 2155 East Wesley Avenue, Denver, CO 80210; Center for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, University of Denver, 2155 East Wesley Avenue, Denver, CO 80210.
Carl W ImhauserDepartment of Biomechanics, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021.
William ZaylorDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Cleveland State University, 1960 East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115; Center for Human Machine Systems, Cleveland State University, 1960 East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115.
Shady ElmasryDepartment of Biomechanics, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021.
Ariel SchwartzDepartment of Biomedical Engineering & Computational Biomodeling (CoBi) Core, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue (ND20), Cleveland, OH 44195.
Snehal K ChokhandreDepartment of Biomedical Engineering & Computational Biomodeling (CoBi) Core, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue (ND20), Cleveland, OH 44195.
Neda Abdollahi NohoujiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Cleveland State University, 1960 East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115; Center for Human Machine Systems, Cleveland State University, 1960 East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115; Department of Biomedical Engineering & Computational Biomodeling (CoBi) Core, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue (ND20), Cleveland, OH 44195.
Thor F BesierAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Level 6/70 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, New Zealand; Department of Engineering Science, Faculty of Engineering, University of Auckland, Level 6/70 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · USUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Denver · USHospital for Special Surgery · USCleveland Clinic · USCleveland State University · USWashington State University Spokane · US

Funding

Reproducibility in simulation-based prediction of natural knee mechanicsR01EB024573 · NIBIB · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI AHMET ERDEMIR, Jason Halloran · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB024573NIH HHS R01EB024573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately capturing the bone and cartilage morphology and generating a mesh remains a critical step in the workflow of computational knee joint modeling. Currently, there is no standardized method to compare meshes of different element types and nodal densities, making comparisons across research teams a significant challenge. The aim of this paper is to describe a method to quantify differences in knee joint bone and cartilages meshes, independent of bone and cartilage mesh topology. Bone mesh-to-mesh distances, subchondral bone boundaries, and cartilage thicknesses from meshes of any type of mesh are obtained using a series of steps involving registration, resampling, and radial basis function fitting after which the comparisons are performed. Subchondral bone boundaries and cartilage thicknesses are calculated and visualized in a common frame of reference for comparison. The established method is applied to models developed by five modeling teams. Our approach to obtain bone mesh-to-mesh distances decreased the divergence seen in selecting a reference mesh (i.e., comparing mesh A-to-B versus mesh B-to-A). In general, the bone morphology was similar across teams. The cartilage thicknesses for all models were calculated and the mean absolute cartilage thickness difference was presented, the articulating areas had the best agreement across teams. The teams showed disagreement on the subchondral bone boundaries. The method presented in this paper allows for objective comparisons of bone and cartilage geometry that is agnostic to mesh type and nodal density.

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularBone and BonesCartilageHumansKnee Joint

Identifiers

PMID34041519
PMCPMC8299816
OpenAlexW3164539523

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.