Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40937362›Full record

ArticleJOR spine2025

Validation of a Coordinate Optimization Approach for Assessment of In Vivo Intervertebral Kinematics in Patients With Adult Spinal Deformity and Healthy Older Adults.

Birgitt Peeters, Mario Keko, Lennart Scheys, Dennis E Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JOR spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Birgitt PeetersDepartment of Development and Regeneration Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training Leuven Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4786-8881
Mario KekoCarl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.
Lennart ScheysDepartment of Development and Regeneration Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training Leuven Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1727-533X
Dennis E AndersonCenter for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5171-7445

Funding

Influence of Spinal Loading on Vertebral FractureR01AR073019 · NIAMS · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI BOUXSEIN, MARY L, SNYDER, BRIAN D · 2018 to 2022
$2.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR073019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spine kinematics assessment is crucial for understanding intervertebral joint motion, particularly in conditions like spinal deformity, which alters and reduces spinal motion. Estimating spine kinematics in vivo usually relies on kinematic constraints to reduce the degrees of freedom in musculoskeletal models, but they lack standardization and fail to generalize across populations. This study proposes a novel method utilizing coordinate optimization instead of kinematic constraints, aiming to improve the generalizability and accuracy of spine kinematics estimation across different populations and marker protocols. Methods: This study used two retrospective datasets: 13 subjects with spinal deformities and 11 healthy individuals. Spine kinematics were estimated by minimizing errors between simulated and experimental marker positions and penalizing large intervertebral joint angles. 3D orientation and position errors against image-based ground truth vertebral orientations and positions and experimental marker positions were calculated and compared for eight different weight settings. The accuracy was further assessed using standard error of measurements (SEM) compared to kinematic constraint methods. Results: The best-performing optimization settings resulted in average vertebral orientation errors of 5.1°, 3.2°, and 3.2° for axial rotation, lateral bending, and flexion-extension, respectively, and 3D position errors of 7.7 mm. These values reflect the average of vertebra-specific errors within each subject, further averaged across all subjects in the deformity dataset. Similarly, in the healthy dataset, average 3D marker errors remained below 1 cm, and SEM values remained below 1.3°. Conclusions: The coordinate optimization method showed robust performance, achieving high accuracy in vertebral orientation and position (deformity) and marker tracking (healthy). This method consistently matched or surpassed state-of-the-art kinematic constraints methods while introducing generalizability across different populations and marker protocols.

Indexed as

adult spinal deformitycoordinate optimizationinverse kinematicsspine kinematics

Identifiers

PMID40937362
PMCPMC12421426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.