Comparison of human gastrocnemius forces predicted by Hill-type muscle models and estimated from ultrasound images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hill-type models are ubiquitous in the field of biomechanics, providing estimates of a muscle's force as a function of its activation state and its assumed force-length and force-velocity properties. However, despite their routine use, the accuracy with which Hill-type models predict the forces generated by muscles during submaximal, dynamic tasks remains largely unknown. This study compared human gastrocnemius forces predicted by Hill-type models with the forces estimated from ultrasound-based measures of tendon length changes and stiffness during cycling, over a range of loads and cadences. We tested both a traditional model, with one contractile element, and a differential model, with two contractile elements that accounted for independent contributions of slow and fast muscle fibres. Both models were driven by subject-specific, ultrasound-based measures of fascicle lengths, velocities and pennation angles and by activation patterns of slow and fast muscle fibres derived from surface electromyographic recordings. The models predicted, on average, 54% of the time-varying gastrocnemius forces estimated from the ultrasound-based methods. However, differences between predicted and estimated forces were smaller under low speed-high activation conditions, with models able to predict nearly 80% of the gastrocnemius force over a complete pedal cycle. Additionally, the predictions from the Hill-type muscle models tested here showed that a similar pattern of force production could be achieved for most conditions with and without accounting for the independent contributions of different muscle fibre types.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".