Tibio-femoral Joint Contact Mechanics: An In-vitro Simulation with a 6 DOF Static Knee Simulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Understanding the relationship between muscle loads crossing the knee joint and knee joint mechanics is critical for understanding knee stability and the effects of altered muscle forces on healthy and ACL injured knees. In vitro measurement can be used to elucidate this if the simulation is biofidelic, allowing the physiological levels of applied loads to dictate the tibiofemoral kinematics in all degrees of freedom (DoF). The objectives of this study were to describe and apply the University of Ottawa knee simulator as well as measure the reliability of the device. In addition, this device was used to quantify the effect of muscle loads and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) resection on contact mechanics and kinematics of the tibiofemoral joint. Methods: Muscle forces were determined from an electromyography-driven musculoskeletal model of a healthy male during gait. Six knee specimens were loaded into the simulator and subjected to 100%, 75% and 50% in vivo muscle forces applied through the 6 simulated muscles, in addition to a quadriceps weakness and a hamstring weakness condition. Tibiofemoral mechanics were measured with all 5 loading conditions before and after ACL transection. Results: With the ACL intact, very high reliability in contact area and pressures among loading conditions were observed as the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.932 to 0.99. After ACL transection, reliability remained very high as ICCs ranged from 0.926 to 0.99. In all simulated conditions, muscle forces maintained the knee joint in a stable position resulting in minimal kinematic differences, but altered contact mechanics in both the ACL and non-ACL condition. Removal of the ACL significantly reduced both the medial and lateral contact areas in all loading conditions compared to the ACL intact condition. Conclusion: In summary, the UOKS has demonstrated high reliability within repeated measures. Additionally, small, normally undetectable alterations in joint kinematics resulted in significant alterations to contact mechanics, which can be linked to the degenerative process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".