ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Real-Time Prediction of Lumbar Spine Stress and Displacement Using a Proof-of-Concept Digital Twin Biomechanical Model.
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
purposeTo develop a proof-of-concept digital twin framework for real-time prediction and visualization of lumbar spine biomechanics in both native and surgically treated models and to numerically verify its fidelity against coupled MBD-FEA simulations.
methodsA hybrid framework combining multibody dynamics (MBD) and finite element (FE) simulations with two sequential Kriging surrogate models was developed. Surrogate Model 1 predicted spinal loads from three-dimensional lumbar rotations; Surrogate Model 2 estimated von Mises stress and displacement from these loads for native and postoperative (TLIF + pedicle screw) spine models. Evaluation consisted of numerical verification against full-order MBD-FEA simulations and a plausibility check by benchmarking against literature-reported L4-L5 intradiscal pressure (IDP) ranges.
resultsFor predefined compound 3-DOF (flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation) lumbar rotational motions, the mean absolute errors (MAEs) of nodal stress and displacement predicted by the digital twin relative to the coupled high-fidelity MBD-FEA outputs were ≤ 0.5% for the native spine and ≤ 0.2% for the postoperative spine. The L4-L5 IDP ranged from 108 to 513 kPa across all motions, indicating physiological levels overlapping with previously reported ranges (30-1530 kPa). However, the predicted values were lower than some reported maxima in flexion (approximately 1500 kPa).
conclusionThis framework demonstrated strong predictive performance in terms of numerical agreement, indicating how faithfully the surrogate model reproduces the high-fidelity coupled MBD-FEA reference solutions, and presented a proof-of-concept pipeline capable of real-time execution and visualization. However, experimental and clinical validation of the accuracy of IMU-derived segment kinematics and in vivo biomechanical outputs should be performed in future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42159839What 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.