ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Comparison of subject-specific musculoskeletal model calibration strategies on muscle force and fatigue estimation.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-bridge model for predicting muscle short-range stiffness during movement.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Quantifying ergonomic challenges for urologists operating flexible ureteroscopes through artificial intelligence-based posture estimation.World journal of urology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Muscle force and fatigue modeling and simulation are powerful tools for rehabilitation, sports performance, ergonomics, and injury prevention. However, their accuracy is challenged by dynamic mechanical and physiological factors. Since musculoskeletal models are typically derived from cadaver data and scaled to individuals, careful subject-specific calibration is recommended to achieve accurate simulation results. This study investigates how different muscle models and calibration strategies affect the accuracy of muscle force estimation at the elbow level. Two models-a simplified static model and a rigid-tendon Hill-type model-were compared. Several calibration approaches were tested using isometric and isokinetic measurements to identify the parameters that most enhance model performance. The models were used to estimate muscle forces, and their outputs were compared to experimental data collected from seventeen healthy subjects. In the first phase, estimations were made during short maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) without fatigue, in order to isolate muscle force from fatigue effects. In the second phase, the calibrated parameters from each strategy were used to estimate muscle forces and fatigue during a short-duration, high-intensity dynamic exercise by incorporating a muscle fatigue model. The highest accuracy was achieved with the Hill-type model, which involved refining individual muscle length and force parameters based on concentric and eccentric MVCs and adjusting two parameters of the force-velocity relationship. However, incorporating subject-specific muscle fatigue parameters did not significantly improve force estimation under fatigue conditions.
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.