ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Musculoskeletal Modeling of a Hinge-Type Back-Support Exoskeleton: A Simplified Approach for Practical Assessment.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To promote the adoption of exoskeletons in industries aiming to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders, it is essential to demonstrate their positive impact for specific tasks and users through practical evaluation methods. This study assessed four methods, each with a different level of detail, for modeling the support provided by a hinge-type back-support exoskeleton in OpenSim. Methods 1 and 2 simulated support as a pure torque applied at the hip joint, with Method 1 relying on user kinematics, and Method 2 using exoskeleton movement data to estimate the torque profile. Method 3 estimated supporting force vectors based on user kinematics and exoskeleton configuration, assuming the user's body and the exoskeleton moved together. Method 4 incorporated the movement of the exoskeleton to simulate support as force vectors and was used as the reference for comparison. Results for back muscle activity and L5-S1 joint reaction forces were compared across the four modeling methods using data from fourteen participants performing squatting and stooping tasks with the exoskeleton. Statistical parameter mapping revealed significant differences in L5-S1 joint reaction forces between Methods 1 and 2 compared to Method 4 throughout the exoskeleton engagement period during squatting, and at the peak trunk angle during stooping. In contrast, minimal differences were observed between Method 3 and Method 4. These findings suggest that modeling exoskeleton support as force vectors based on user kinematics (Method 3) provides reasonable accuracy, demonstrating the feasibility of evaluating exoskeleton support with reduced data collection complexity and enabling an efficient assessment process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41196487What 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.