Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39678384›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Rethinking the physiological cross-sectional area of skeletal muscle reveals the mechanical advantage of pennation.

Robert Rockenfeller, Michael Günther, Christofer J Clemente, Taylor J M Dick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. "Muscle quality": rethinking an imprecise term.European geriatric medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. A (Bite) Force to Be Reckoned With.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Robert RockenfellerMathematical Institute, University of Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-5025
Michael GüntherComputational Biophysics and Biorobotics, Institute for Modelling and Simulation of Biomechanical Systems, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5729-1190
Christofer J ClementeSchool of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8174-3890
Taylor J M DickSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7662-9716

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The shape of skeletal muscle varies remarkably-with important implications for locomotor performance. In many muscles, the fibres are arranged at an angle relative to the tendons' line of action, termed the pennation angle. These pennate muscles allow more sarcomeres to be packed side by side, enabling the muscle to generate higher maximum forces for a given muscle size. Historically, the physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) has been used to capture both the size and arrangement of muscle fibres, and is one of the best predictors of a muscles capacity to produce force. However, the anatomical and mechanical implications of PCSA remain ambiguous as misinterpretations have limited our ability to understand the mechanical advantage of pennate muscle designs. We developed geometric models to resolve the mechanistic and functional impacts of pennation angle across a range of muscle shapes and sizes. Comparisons among model predictions and empirical data on human lower limb muscles demonstrated how a pennate arrangement of fibres allows muscles to produce up to six times more isometric force when compared with non-pennate muscles of the same volume. We show that in muscles much longer than thick, an optimal pennation angle exists at which isometric force is maximized. Using empirically informed geometric models we demonstrate the functional significance of a pennate muscle design and provide a new parameter, pennation mechanical advantage, which quantifies this performance improvement.

Indexed as

biomechanicsmathematical modellingmuscle architecturephysiology

Identifiers

PMID39678384
PMCPMC11639153

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.