ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Evaluating Different Optimization Criteria for Estimating Spine Loads and Muscle Activity During Manual Lifting With and Without Assistance from Back-Support Exoskeletons.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated how back muscle activity, estimated using different optimization criteria in a commercial musculoskeletal modeling system, corresponds to measured activity. We also examined how the choice of optimization criterion influences the effect of back-support exoskeleton (BSE) on reducing spine loads during symmetric and asymmetric dynamic lowering/lifting tasks.
methodsWe simulated dynamic lowering/lifting tasks in the AnyBody Modeling System™ using three optimization criteria: quadratic, cubic, and min/max, across three intervention conditions: two BSEs and one control (no BSE). Estimated muscle activity was compared with normalized electromyography (nEMG) using quantitative and qualitative assessments. For each simulation, we estimated peak axial compression and anteroposterior shear spine loads at the L4/L5 level.
resultsQuadratic and cubic criteria showed stronger associations with nEMG and smaller errors. Errors were larger during lifting than lowering and greater in asymmetric than symmetric tasks. Qualitatively, the quadratic and cubic estimated higher ipsilateral than contralateral longissimus erector spinae activity in asymmetric tasks, contrary to measured patterns. EMG showed lower activity during lowering than lifting, whereas all criteria produced nearly symmetrical phase profiles. Estimated spine loads varied by criterion; however, all indicated comparable relative reductions with BSE use.
conclusionOptimization criteria influenced the magnitude of estimated spinal loads but did not affect conclusions regarding BSE effectiveness. Although muscle activity estimates showed generally strong agreement with measured data, consistent discrepancies in asymmetric tasks indicate limitations of current static optimization approaches in capturing true muscle recruitment patterns. Criterion performance was not substantially altered by BSE use, suggesting task dependency rather than device dependency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412276What 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.