MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075486892 · doi:10.1115/1.3078159

A Cadaverically Evaluated Dynamic FEM Model of Closed-Chain TKR Mechanics

2009· article· en· W2075486892 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel L. Lanovaz, Randy E. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsLigamentBiomechanicsFinite element methodStiffnessMechanicsTotal knee replacementKnee JointOrthodonticsMotion captureStructural engineeringComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysicsMotion (physics)EngineeringAnatomySurgeryMedicineClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of the behavior and mechanics of a total knee replacement (TKR) in an in vivo environment is key to optimizing the functional outcomes of the implant procedure. Computational modeling has shown to be an important tool for investigating biomechanical variables that are difficult to address experimentally. To assist in examining TKR mechanics, a dynamic finite-element model of a TKR is presented. The objective of the study was to develop and evaluate a model that could simulate full knee motion using a physiologically consistent quadriceps action, without prescribed joint kinematics. The model included tibiofemoral (TFJs) and patellofemoral joints (PFJs), six major ligament bundles and was driven by a uni-axial representation of a quadricep muscle. An initial parameter screening analysis was performed to assess the relative importance of 31 different model parameters. This analysis showed that ligament insertion location and initial ligament strain were significant factors affecting simulated joint kinematics and loading, with the contact friction coefficient playing a lesser role and ligament stiffness having little effect. The model was then used to simulate in vitro experiments utilizing a flexed-knee-stance testing rig. General model performance was assessed by comparing simulation results with experimentally measured kinematics and tibial reaction forces collected from two implanted specimens. The simulations were able to reproduce experimental differences observed between the test specimens and were able to accurately predict trends seen in the tibial reaction loads. The simulated kinematics of the TFJ and PFJ were less consistent when compared with experimental data but still reproduced many trends.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207