ArticlePloS one2025
Calibrated muscle models improve tracking simulations without enhancing gait predictions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study presents two main aims: (i) to assess functionally-calibrated musculoskeletal models (FCMs) in both tracking and predictive simulations of human motion, against non-linearly scaled models (NSMs), and (ii) to examine the effects of three different variations of our baseline functional calibration approach on the results of tracking and predictive simulations.
methodsMotion capture experiments of six functional activities were performed with three healthy subjects. The musculotendon (MT) parameters of 18 muscles per leg were estimated using an optimal control problem. A baseline problem formulation and three variations were developed to generate four different FCMs per subject. Then, the FCMs were compared against NSMs in tracking simulations of the motions excluded from the calibration and fully-predictive simulations of gait.
resultsIn the tracking simulations, the FCMs led to more accurate joint torques estimations. Including gait in the calibration problems improved the knee torques accuracy (normalised root mean square error: 0.31 [Formula: see text] 0.11), compared to the baseline calibration (normalised root mean square error: 0.70 [Formula: see text] 0.21). Regarding the gait predictive simulations, the NSMs consistently yielded more accurate subtalar inversion/eversion torques and knee flexion angles, compared to the FCMs. The accuracy of the predicted muscle excitations was generally consistent between NSMs and FCMs.
conclusionThe results suggest that, while the FCMs led to more accurate joint torques estimations in the tracking simulations, they did not outperform the NSMs in the fully-predictive gait simulations.
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.