Kinematic behavior of a customized surface-guided knee implant during simulated knee-bending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different designs of total knee replacements (TKRs) aim to enhance the satisfaction of the patients by providing close to normal kinematics. In the surface-guided TKRs, the guidance of the motion in a normal pattern should be achieved through specially shaped articulating geometries. This study used virtual simulation along with a load-controlled knee wear simulator to evaluate the kinematic performance of a customized surface-guided TKR under weight-bearing conditions of lunging and squatting activities. The outcome pattern of TKR motion almost agreed with the predefined design target. The tibial insert rotated internally through a maximum angle of 10.6° and 19.94° for the experimentally simulated lunging and squatting cycles, respectively. This rotation occurred around a medial center, as indicated by a small amount of posterior translation of the medial condyle (maximum of 2.5mm and 6.4mm for lunging and squatting) versus the posterior translation of the lateral condyle (maximum of 12mm and 24.2mm for lunging and squatting). The contact forces mainly provided the guidance of the motion at the tibiofemoral articulating surfaces.The normalized root mean square error between outcomes of the virtual simulations and tests for the angle of internal-external rotation of the tibial insert was less than 8% for one cycle of lunging and squatting. These measures confirm the validity of the virtual simulation for future evaluations of the customized surface-guided TKRs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".