ReviewBiomedical journal2026
From intradiscal pressure to multimodal estimation of lumbar spinal loads.
Review in Biomedical journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEstimation of lumbar spinal loads is important for understanding low back pain, guiding ergonomic interventions, and informing surgical and rehabilitation planning. Historically, intradiscal pressure (IDP) provided one of the few internal in vivo measures of disc loading; more recently, telemetry, musculoskeletal (MS) modeling, finite element (FE) analysis, hybrid MS-FE approaches, displacement/control-based methods, and AI surrogates have expanded the toolbox for estimating spinal loads. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe present a narrative perspective review based on a literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using terms related to spinal loads, IDP, telemeterized implants, MS modeling, FE analysis, hybrid MS-FE coupling, displacement/control-based methods, wearable/EMG-based approaches, and AI/machine learning surrogates. Human lumbar studies and methodological contributions relevant to load estimation or validation were included; animal models were excluded.
resultsInvasive approaches (needle-based IDP, discography, intra-abdominal pressure, and telemeterized implants) provide task-dependent internal pressures or forces in small, selected cohorts and now primarily serve as benchmarks for model validation. MS models estimate segmental compression, shear, and net moments from motion and EMG, with typical L4-L5 compressive forces of ∼1-2 kN in relaxed standing and ∼3-5 kN during common lifting tasks. FE and hybrid MS-FE simulations resolve how these loads are distributed across discs, facets, and ligaments and relate segmental forces to internal stresses. Displacement-driven/control-based models and emerging AI/wearable-based surrogates provide additional non-invasive pathways for task-specific lumbar load estimation.
conclusionsThis methods-focused synthesis outlines how invasive data support MS, FE, hybrid, and AI-based approaches and highlights recurring challenges in muscle redundancy, constitutive and parameter uncertainty, limited in vivo benchmarks, and heterogeneous model reporting. Within this framework, IDP is best regarded as an internal benchmark rather than a stand-alone metric of "spinal load" which is more fully described by compression, shear, moments, and internal stresses.
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.