MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472658502 · doi:10.1080/21681163.2016.1187087

A musculoskeletal model of the lumbar spine using ArtiSynth – development and validation

2016· article· en· W2472658502 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoud Malakoutian, John Street, Hans‐Joachim Wilke, Ian Stavness, Sidney Fels, Thomas R. Oxland

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering Imaging & Visualization · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsStiffnessAnatomyBiomechanicsLumbarBiomedical engineeringLumbar spineTendonMechanicsComputer sciencePhysicsStructural engineeringMedicineEngineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A musculoskeletal model of the spine was created using ArtiSynth, an open-source biomechanical modelling toolkit. The model included the entire spine and rib cage, with the lumbar vertebrae being mobile and 210 muscle fascicles. Muscle parameters needed for a full Hill-type musculotendon model including tendon ratios and pennation angles along with muscle force-length and force-velocity curves were incorporated into the model, as were the nonlinear stiffness of the functional spinal units and the effect of intra-abdominal pressure. We used forward dynamics-assisted data tracking for the estimation of muscle forces and validated the solution method by comparing the predicted spinal forces vs. the results of two in vivo experiments in the literature. Our model produced larger maximum extension moment in flexion than extension, which is observed in in vivo experiments. These results could not be achieved without the inclusion of the muscle force-length relationship. The model was also able to predict the ratios of axial forces at L4–L5 as measured in vivo intradiscal pressures for three cases of upright standing, holding a crate close to and far from the chest. Due to the high stiffness of the spine, our solution method was sensitive to input kinematics, which hindered extensive validation of the model for body positions other than standing. Modifying the solution method, possibly by only tracking the angular motion of the vertebrae rather than their translational motion, should make the model less sensitive and enable further validation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering Imaging & VisualizationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207