Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42172933›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanics2026

Personalized musculoskeletal models show that gait biofeedback alters knee cartilage contact mechanics in ACL-reconstructed subjects.

A Paz, A Esrafilian, C Armitano-Lago, A Munsch, C Lisee, E Bjornsen, A N Buck, D Lalush, R K Korhonen, B Pietrosimone and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

A PazDepartment of Technical Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; Imaging Center, Wellbeing Services County of North Savo, Kuopio, Finland.
A EsrafilianDepartment of Technical Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
C Armitano-LagoDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Thurston Arthritis Research Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
A MunschLampe Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
C LiseeDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
E BjornsenDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
A N BuckDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Thurston Arthritis Research Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
D LalushLampe Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
R K KorhonenDepartment of Technical Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
B PietrosimoneDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
M E MononenDepartment of Technical Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
M K LiukkonenImaging Center, Wellbeing Services County of North Savo, Kuopio, Finland.
J R FranzThurston Arthritis Research Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lampe Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: jrfranz@email.unc.edu.

Funding

UNC Core Center for Clinical ResearchP30AR072580 · NIAMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEIGH Fleming CALLAHAN, Amanda E Nelson · 2019 to 2026
$6.1M
Discovering the Mechanisms Linking Gait to Osteoarthritis Onset and ProgressionR01AR083952 · NIAMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Jason R Franz, Brian Pietrosimone · 2025 to 2026
$1.2M
The Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease Epidemiology and Outcomes Training Program at the University of North CarolinaT32AR082310 · NIAMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEIGH Fleming CALLAHAN, Amanda E Nelson · 2024 to 2026
$616k
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072580NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR083952NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR082310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed (ACLR) patients exhibit less dynamic knee loading during walking than uninjured controls, which may be harmful to the joint. Increasing the first peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) during walking by visual biofeedback promotes more dynamic loading. Musculoskeletal (MSK) modeling has served to simulate the resulting knee contact mechanics from this intervention, but the impact of model personalization has not been examined. Therefore, we compared the use of generic and personalized MSK models to characterize knee joint contact mechanics during the stance phase of habitual and biofeedback walking of eight ACLR subjects. The generic approach consisted of a literature-based MSK model with a 12-degree-of-freedom knee. The personalized approach incorporated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based cartilage articulating surfaces and ligament insertion points of the ACLR knees. In our results, the vGRF differed between habitual and biofeedback walking, as well as the flexion angle, joint contact forces, and extensor moment between walking conditions using either generic or personalized simulation approaches. Regarding the contact pressure-based results, the personalized approach illustrated clearer differences in the cumulative contact pressure between tibiofemoral compartments (p < 0.05, effect size ES > 1), and both models showed differences between walking conditions, like in the excursion of the center of contact pressure in the lateral compartment of femur (p < 0.05, ES > 0.5) and tibia (p < 0.05, ES > 0.7). In conclusion, using a generic model may suffice for limb-level kinetic and kinematic analysis, and contact pressure-based variables from either of the modeling approaches capture changes in walking. However, validation is needed regarding joint site-specific conclusions.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionBiofeedback, PsychologyCartilage, ArticularGaitKnee JointModels, BiologicalAdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentBiomechanical PhenomenaComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleTibiofemoral JointWalkingAnterior cruciate ligamentArticular cartilageMusculoskeletal modelingOsteoarthritisWalking

Identifiers

PMID42172933
PMCPMC13334850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.