ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2026
Deciphering the "Art" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Model Benchmarking.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Classifying Wrist Ligament Injuries Using Synthetically-Generated Joint Proximity Maps from Finite Element Models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Given the strong ties to data sharing and the responsible use of resources, reproducibility of modeling and simulation practice is of paramount importance in science. Computational models in orthopedics provide insight into healthy and injured joint mechanics and can inform clinical decision-making. The KneeHub project investigated the influence of modelers' decisions and thus their "art" in simulation and modeling; five teams developed and calibrated knee models using the same experimental data. Model benchmarking evaluated the predictive ability of the models under loading scenarios that were not considered in the development and calibration process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predictions of knee-specific joint biomechanics for benchmark scenarios of simulating a resected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) using models of one knee and a combined pivot shift loading using models of another knee. The models predicted the major trends in kinematics and kinetics; however, differences were observed in comparison to experimental data and between teams. Model-to-experiment root-mean-square (RMS) errors were up to 6.6±2.4 mm in anterior-posterior (AP) translation, 13.5±12.9 deg in internal-external (IE) rotation, and 5.3±3.4 deg in varus-valgus (VV) rotation; errors were largest in internal-external rotation, and standard deviations reflected differences between teams. While calibrated models were tuned to a similar set of conditions (albeit with different decisions), the optimized stiffness and reference length/strain of ligament structures may not fully reproduce the contributions of these structures to joint kinematics that were measured experimentally in the benchmark scenarios. As researchers often extend models beyond the conditions used to calibrate them, quantifying model accuracy and limitations with benchmarking represents a crucial step toward reproducibility and can help establish best practices for credible modeling in our community.
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.