A Method for Numerical Simulation of Single Limb Ground Contact Events: Application to Heel-Toe Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to develop a method to simulate single-limb ground contact events, which may be applied to study musculoskeletal injuries associated with such movements. To achieve this objective, a three-dimensional musculoskeletal model was developed consisting of the equations of motion for the musculoskeletal system, and models for the muscle force generation and ground contact elements. An optimization framework and a weighted least-squares objective function were presented that generated muscle stimulation patterns that optimally reproduced subject-specific movement data. Experimental data were collected from a single subject to provide initial conditions for the simulation and tracking data for the optimization. As an example application, a simulation of the stance phase of running was generated. The results showed that the average difference between the simulation and subject's ground reaction force and joint angle data was less than two inter-trial standard deviations. Further, there was good agreement between the model's muscle excitation patterns and experimentally collected electromyography data. These results give confidence in the model to examine musculoskeletal loading during a variety of landing movements and to study the effects of various factors associated with injury. Limitations were examined and areas of improvement for the model were presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".