ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Benchmarking the predictive capability of human gait simulations.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physics-based simulation generate movement patterns based on a neuro-musculoskeletal model without relying on experimental movement data, offering a powerful approach to study how neuro-musculoskeletal properties shape locomotion. Yet, simulated gait patterns and metabolic powers do not always agree with experiments, pointing to modeling errors reflecting gaps in our understanding. Here, we systematically evaluated the predictive capability of simulations based on a 3D musculoskeletal model to predict gait mechanics, muscle activity, and metabolic power across gait conditions. We simulated the effect of adding mass to body segments, variations in walking speed, inclined walking, and crouched walking. We chose tasks that are relatively straightforward to model to limit the contribution of errors in modeling the task to prediction errors. The simulations predicted stride frequency and walking kinematics with reasonable accuracy but underestimated variation in metabolic power across conditions. In particular, simulations underestimated changes in metabolic power with respect to level walking in tasks requiring substantial positive mechanical work, such as incline walking (27% underestimation). We identified two possible errors in simulated metabolic power. First, the phenomenological metabolic power model produced high maximal mechanical efficiency (average 0.58) during concentric contractions, compared to the observed 0.2-0.3 in laboratory experiments. Second, when we multiplied the mechanical work with more realistic estimates of mechanical efficiency (i.e., 0.25), simulations overestimated the metabolic power by 84%. This suggests that positive work by muscle fibers was overestimated in the simulations. This overestimation may be caused by several assumptions and errors in (the parameters of) the musculoskeletal model including its interaction with the environment or in the cost function. This study highlights the need for more accurate models of musculoskeletal mechanics, energetics, passive elastic structures, and neural control (e.g., optimality criteria) to improve the realism of human movement simulations. Validating simulations across a broad range of conditions is important to pinpoint shortcomings in model-based 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.