ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2023
Deciphering the "Art" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Assessing Model Calibration Workflows and Outcomes.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2023. 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.
- Rapid personalized computational modeling of the wrist.Medical engineering & physics · 2026Article
- Deciphering the "Art" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Model Benchmarking.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2026Article
- In Pursuit of Quantifying Patient Knee Contact Mechanics: Finite Element Model Validation of Cadaveric Knees in Axially Loaded MRI Scans.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025Article
- Validating subject-specific knee models fromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Model reproducibility is a point of emphasis for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in science, broadly. As the use of computational modeling in biomechanics and orthopedics grows, so does the need to assess the reproducibility of modeling workflows and simulation predictions. The long-term goal of the KneeHub project is to understand the influence of potentially subjective decisions, thus the modeler's "art", on the reproducibility and predictive uncertainty of computational knee joint models. In this paper, we report on the model calibration phase of this project, during which five teams calibrated computational knee joint models of the same specimens from the same specimen-specific joint mechanics dataset. We investigated model calibration approaches and decisions, and compared calibration workflows and model outcomes among the teams. The selection of the calibration targets used in the calibration workflow differed greatly between the teams and was influenced by modeling decisions related to the representation of structures, and considerations for computational cost and implementation of optimization. While calibration improved model performance, differences in the postcalibration ligament properties and predicted kinematics were quantified and discussed in the context of modeling decisions. Even for teams with demonstrated expertise, model calibration is difficult to foresee and plan in detail, and the results of this study underscore the importance of identification and standardization of best practices for data sharing and calibration.
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.