ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Generic versus personalized foot-ground contact models for predictive simulations of walking: Is personalization worth the effort?
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
Purpose: Quantification of walking function, including joint motions, ground reactions, and joint loads, outside the lab is a growing research area. Because only joint motions can currently be measured outside the lab, researchers are utilizing tracking optimizations of walking to estimate associated ground reactions and inverse dynamic joint loads. However, foot-ground contact models used in such optimizations have been generic rather than personalized, which may limit the accuracy of estimated ground reactions and joint loads. This study compares the predictive capabilities of generic versus personalized foot-ground contact models. Methods: Generic and personalized foot-ground contact models were evaluated in calibration and tracking optimizations performed using experimental walking data collected from three subjects in varying states of health. Foot-only calibration optimizations evaluated how well both models could reproduce experimental ground reaction and foot motion data while tracking both types of data simultaneously, while whole-body tracking optimizations evaluated how well both models could reproduce experimental ground reactions, joint motion, and joint load data while tracking only experimental joint motion data and achieving dynamic consistency. Results: For all three subjects and both types of optimizations, personalized foot-ground contact models reproduced experimental ground reaction, joint motion, and joint load data more accurately than generic foot-ground contact models. Conclusion: Personalized foot-ground contact models can improve the accuracy with which ground reactions and joint loads can be estimated via tracking optimizations of walking using only experimental motion data as inputs. Personalized models require little time and effort to calibrate using freely available software tools and should improve the accuracy of predictive simulations of walking as well.
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.