MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2527237775

HIP JOINT CENTER LOCATION WITH KALMAN FILTER

2012· article· en· W2527237775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elisa Beretta, Marta Valenti, Elena De Momi, Giancarlo Ferrigno

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsPelvisKalman filterComputer scienceFemurComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAnatomyMedicineSurgeryPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The location of the hip joint center (HJC) allows correct prosthesis aligning and positioning in Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS) applications. For the kinematic HJC localisation, the femur is moved around the pelvis with ad hoc motion trials (“pivoting”). The “Pivoting algorithm” [Siston et al., J Biomech 39 (2006) 125–130] is the functional state-of-the-art method for the hip center localisation. A source of systematic error in HJC localisation algorithms is represented by the pelvis motion during the pivoting. In computer assisted total knee arthroplasty applications, the pelvis pose is not acquired during passive movements. In motion capture applications, Kalman Filter (KF) methodology was used to estimate the pose of hidden segment for rigid body pose estimation. The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy and robustness of a Kalman Filter algorithm, applied to a state space formulation based on two links model of the hip joint, to track the HJC position during passive movements of the articulation in CAOS procedure. The state space model describes femur and pelvis kinematics under the hypothesis of non-laxity of the articulation (ideal spherical joint). The first link models the femoral bone, while the second link models the pelvis. The femur is tracked with a Dynamic Reference Frame (DRF) attached to the distal end, composed by four active markers, while the pelvis is tracked attaching a marker to it. The kinematic relations between the state vector and the observations are non linear function. The state space has been implemented with II order linear dynamics. The position of HJC in the Femur Reference Frame is modeled with non-dynamic state variables. In order to validate the proposed algorithm, a physical model of the hip joint (femur and pelvis) was realised using SawBones models. An active optical localisation system (Certus, NDI, Ontario, Canada) was used in order to track the coordinates of two DRF rigidly connected on each segment and the coordinates of a marker attached to the pelvis segment (on the Anterior Superior Iliac Spine ASIS). The pelvis phantom is locked on a Mass-Spring-Damper platform with 2 DoFs, which mimics soft tissues behaviour. During the pivoting motion, the poses of the femur DRF and the positions of the ASIS marker of the pelvis DRF were collected. The acquired data were the observable outputs to the KF algorithm, which computes an estimation of the state parameters. The accuracy is evaluated as the Euclidean distance between respectively the estimated and Gold Standard HJC positions in FRF. The KF method performances were compared with the “Pivoting” algorithm. The localisation errors computed for both the methodologies were evaluated with respect to the HJC translation, to the Range Of pivoting Motion (ROM) and to the velocity of femur DRF trajectory (Pearson correlation analysis). The positive correlation coefficients between HJC translation and the localization errors result statistically significant (p The new method KF proved to be applicable in current CAOS systems. The substantial improvement of KF method is the possibility of reducing the systematical error, caused by pelvis motion during passive movement of the femur, to compute HJC position. On the other hand, tracking the HJC trajectory in real time is a nontrivial task and requires a very accurate filter parameters tuning. Further tests must be made to estimate the in-vivo range of HJC translation during passive pivoting movements and evaluate the performances of KF method with respect to others state-of-the-art methods.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→