Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37923814›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2024

Quantifying the Importance of Active Muscle Repositioning a Finite Element Neck Model in Flexion Using Kinematic, Kinetic, and Tissue-Level Responses.

Prasannaah Hadagali, Steven L Fischer, Jack P Callaghan, Duane S Cronin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Tissue-Level Neck Response in Rotary-Wing Aircrew With Head-Supported Mass Assessed With Finite Element Model.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. An MRI-derived head-neck finite element model.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Prasannaah HadagaliMechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Steven L FischerKinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Jack P CallaghanKinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Duane S CroninMechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. dscronin@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7538-0560

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNon-neutral neck positions are important initial conditions in impact scenarios, associated with a higher incidence of injury. Repositioning in finite element (FE) neck models is often achieved by applying external boundary conditions (BCs) to the head while constraining the first thoracic vertebra (T1). However, in vivo, neck muscles contract to achieve a desired head and neck position generating initial loads and deformations in the tissues. In the present study, a new muscle-based repositioning method was compared to traditional applied BCs using a contemporary FE neck model for forward head flexion of 30°.

methodsFor the BC method, an external moment (2.6 Nm) was applied to the head with T1 fixed, while for the muscle-based method, the flexors and extensors were co-contracted under gravity loading to achieve the target flexion.

resultsThe kinematic response from muscle contraction was within 10% of the in vivo experimental data, while the BC method differed by 18%. The intervertebral disc forces from muscle contraction were agreeable with the literature (167 N compression, 12 N shear), while the BC methodology underpredicted the disc forces owing to the lack of spine compression. Correspondingly, the strains in the annulus fibrosus increased by an average of 60% across all levels due to muscle contraction compared to BC method.

conclusionThe muscle repositioning method enhanced the kinetic response and subsequently led to differences in tissue-level responses compared to the conventional BC method. The improved kinematics and kinetics quantify the importance of repositioning FE neck models using active muscles to achieve non-neutral neck positions.

Indexed as

Intervertebral DiscNeckBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisNeck MusclesFinite element neck modelNeck model repositioningNon-neutral positionTissue-level deformation

Identifiers

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.