ReviewBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2026
Computational models for predicting bone fracture healing: a review of modeling approaches, predictions, and emerging strategies.
Review in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe development of computational models for predicting bone fracture healing process holds strong potential to optimize therapeutic management in non-unions and delayed healing, reducing healthcare costs and disability-adjusted life years. The main goal of this study is to provide a thoroughly comparative analysis to computational models already proposed to predict fracture healing, including methodologies, mathematical frameworks, validation techniques, and comparative findings across different studies.
methodsThis review analyzes 60 computational models selected through a systematic search in the Scopus database (2000-2025) using targeted keywords and rigorously screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for simulating bone fracture healing, focusing on mechanical, biological, mechanobiological, ultrasound, and bioelectronic dynamics, employing FEM and artificial intelligence techniques. The effectiveness of each model in predicting healing progression was assessed by analyzing their computational frameworks, accuracy, and limitations.
resultsComparative analysis revealed that both mechanical and biological models provide fundamental predictions related to fracture healing (e.g., stress distribution and vascularization), but they often lack the physiological complexity demanded for clinical application. Mechanobiological models accurately predict tissue differentiation by combining mechanical stimuli, with strong qualitative agreement with in vivo histological patterns. Ultrasound models have been effective for non-invasive structural assessment, despite existing limitations due to simplified boundary conditions. Notably, the development of bioelectric models has been demonstrating a highly sensitive approach for assessing fracture healing.
conclusionsThis study highlights that multidomain computational frameworks combining mechanobiological dynamics with dielectric properties hold significant potential to personalize the clinical management of delayed bone healing.
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.