ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2022
Sensitivity of musculoskeletal models to variation in muscle architecture parameters.
Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the limits: the impact of extreme functional hip width on the muscular demands of walking.Biology open · 2026Article
- Muscle forces and the demands of turning while walking.Biology open · 2025Article
- Implications of variability in triceps surae muscle volumes on peak lower limb muscle forces during human walking.PloS one · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional architecture and moment arms of human rotator cuff muscles in vivo: Interindividual, intermuscular, and intramuscular variations.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Static versus dynamic muscle modelling in extinct species: a biomechanical case study of thePeerJ · 2024Article
- Article
- Variability and the form-function framework in evolutionary biomechanics and human locomotion.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Musculoskeletal models, like all theoretical models of physical processes, depend on the assumptions needed to construct the model. For musculoskeletal models, these assumptions include, among other things, the kinematic data, the kinetic data and the muscle parameters. The former (dynamic) data can be acquired relatively easily from living subjects, but the latter are usually based on limited information, frequently determined from cadaver studies performed on elderly individuals. Previously, we determined the sensitivity of forces to dynamic differences among 10 humans walking on a straight path. Here, we assess the sensitivity of the muscle and joint reaction forces developed in human walking to variable muscle parameters obtained from 10 living adults, whose data were recently reported, and compared the results with the values from a standard model that depends on cadaveric data. We found that, while the force patterns across the stance cycle were similar among muscle parameter models, differences of as much as 15% in the force magnitude were produced. Whether or not the variation between the standard model and other muscle parameters is important depends on why the forces are required.
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.