Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38919383›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Bridging the sim2real gap. Investigating deviations between experimental motion measurements and musculoskeletal simulation results-a systematic review.

Iris Wechsler, Alexander Wolf, Julian Shanbhag, Sigrid Leyendecker, Bjoern M Eskofier, Anne D Koelewijn, Sandro Wartzack, Jörg Miehling

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Iris WechslerEngineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Alexander WolfEngineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Julian ShanbhagEngineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Sigrid LeyendeckerInstitute of Applied Dynamics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Bjoern M EskofierMachine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering (AIBE), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Anne D KoelewijnMachine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering (AIBE), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Sandro WartzackEngineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Jörg MiehlingEngineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal simulations can be used to estimate biomechanical variables like muscle forces and joint torques from non-invasive experimental data using inverse and forward methods. Inverse kinematics followed by inverse dynamics (ID) uses body motion and external force measurements to compute joint movements and the corresponding joint loads, respectively. ID leads to residual forces and torques (residuals) that are not physically realistic, because of measurement noise and modeling assumptions. Forward dynamic simulations (FD) are found by tracking experimental data. They do not generate residuals but will move away from experimental data to achieve this. Therefore, there is a gap between reality (the experimental measurements) and simulations in both approaches, the sim2real gap. To answer (patho-) physiological research questions, simulation results have to be accurate and reliable; the sim2real gap needs to be handled. Therefore, we reviewed methods to handle the sim2real gap in such musculoskeletal simulations. The review identifies, classifies and analyses existing methods that bridge the sim2real gap, including their strengths and limitations. Using a systematic approach, we conducted an electronic search in the databases Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. We selected and included 85 relevant papers that were sorted into eight different solution clusters based on three aspects: how the sim2real gap is handled, the mathematical method used, and the parameters/variables of the simulations which were adjusted. Each cluster has a distinctive way of handling the sim2real gap with accompanying strengths and limitations. Ultimately, the method choice largely depends on various factors: available model, input parameters/variables, investigated movement and of course the underlying research aim. Researchers should be aware that the sim2real gap remains for both ID and FD approaches. However, we conclude that multimodal approaches tracking kinematic and dynamic measurements may be one possible solution to handle the sim2real gap as methods tracking multimodal measurements (some combination of sensor position/orientation or EMG measurements), consistently lead to better tracking performances. Initial analyses show that motion analysis performance can be enhanced by using multimodal measurements as different sensor technologies can compensate each other's weaknesses.

Indexed as

biomechanical modeling and simulationdata tracking methodsforward dynamic simulationsinverse dynamicsresidual minimisationsim2real gapsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38919383
PMCPMC11196827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.