ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Robust kinetics estimation from kinematics via direct collocation.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Generic versus personalized foot-ground contact models for predictive simulations of walking: Is personalization worth the effort?bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate joint moment analysis is essential in biomechanics, and the integration of direct collocation with markerless motion capture offers a promising approach for its estimation. However, markerless motion capture can introduce varying degrees of error in tracking trajectories. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the direct collocation method in estimating kinetics when joint trajectory data are impacted by noise. Methods: We focused on walking and squatting movements as our target activities. To assess the method's robustness, we created five groups with differing noise levels-noise-free, mild noise, noisy group1, noisy group2, and a Gaussian noise group-in the joint center trajectories. Our approach involved combining joint center tracking with biological terms within the direct collocation scheme to address noise-related challenges. We calculated kinematics, joint moments, and ground reaction forces for comparison across the different noise groups. Results: For the walking task, the mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the knee flexion moments were 0.103, 0.113, 0.127, 0.129, and 0.116 Nm/kg across the respective noise levels. The corresponding MAEs of the ankle flexion moment were 0.130, 0.133, 0.145, 0.131, and 0.138 Nm/kg. The hip flexion moment had MAEs of 0.182, 0.204, 0.242, 0.246, and 0.249 Nm/kg in the respective groups. In squatting, the MAEs of ankle flexion moments were 0.207, 0.219, 0.217, 0.253, and 0.227 Nm/kg in the noise-free, mild noise, noisy group1, noisy group2, and the Gaussian noise group, respectively. The MAEs of the knee flexion moments were 0.177, 0.196, 0.198, 0.197, and 0.221 Nm/kg, whereas the mean MAEs of the hip flexion moments were 0.125, 0.135, 0.141, 0.161, and 0.178 Nm/kg in the respective groups. Conclusion: The results highlight that the direct collocation method incorporating both tracking and biological terms in the cost function could robustly estimate joint moments during walking and squatting across various noise levels. Currently, this method is better suited to reflect general activity dynamics than subject-specific dynamics in clinical practice. Future research should focus on refining cost functions to achieve an optimal balance between robustness and accuracy.
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.