MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015167900 · doi:10.1115/sbc2011-53594

A Weighted Objective Function Reduces Estimates of Medial and Lateral Knee Joint Contact Loads During Gait

2011· article· en· W2015167900 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott C.E. Brandon, Darryl G. Thelen, Kevin J. Deluzio

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2011 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKnee JointKinematicsGaitContact forceJoint (building)BiomechanicsComputer scienceGait analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationStructural engineeringMedicineEngineeringAnatomySurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate prediction of knee joint contact loading during gait is important for understanding knee pathology and development of suitable clinical interventions. While many researchers have modeled the knee contact loads during level walking, these predictions have ranged from 3.4 [1] to 7 [2] times body weight. Validation of contact loads is difficult; the joint contact load depends not only on readily obtainable external kinematics and reaction forces, but also on the forces generated by muscle and other soft tissues. Recently, an instrumented tibial implant, capable of telemetrically reporting the six degree-of-freedom loading environment of the tibial plateau, was used to tune and validate an EMG-driven model of the lower extremity [3]. Recognizing the value of these in vivo data, and the limitations of existing knee models, these researchers devised the Grand Challenge Competitions to Predict In Vivo Knee Loads.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2011 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and BSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207