MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775797490 · doi:10.1115/1.4038741

Multibody Kinematics Optimization for the Estimation of Upper and Lower Limb Human Joint Kinematics: A Systematized Methodological Review

2017· review· en· W2775797490 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet
KeywordsKinematicsComputer scienceInverse kinematicsRepeatabilityJoint (building)Multibody systemSimulationMathematicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multibody kinematics optimization (MKO) aims to reduce soft tissue artefact (STA) and is a key step in musculoskeletal modeling. The objective of this review was to identify the numerical methods, their validation and performance for the estimation of the human joint kinematics using MKO. Seventy-four papers were extracted from a systematized search in five databases and cross-referencing. Model-derived kinematics were obtained using either constrained optimization or Kalman filtering to minimize the difference between measured (i.e., by skin markers, electromagnetic or inertial sensors) and model-derived positions and/or orientations. While hinge, universal, and spherical joints prevail, advanced models (e.g., parallel and four-bar mechanisms, elastic joint) have been introduced, mainly for the knee and shoulder joints. Models and methods were evaluated using: (i) simulated data based, however, on oversimplified STA and joint models; (ii) reconstruction residual errors, ranging from 4 mm to 40 mm; (iii) sensitivity analyses which highlighted the effect (up to 36 deg and 12 mm) of model geometrical parameters, joint models, and computational methods; (iv) comparison with other approaches (i.e., single body kinematics optimization and nonoptimized kinematics); (v) repeatability studies that showed low intra- and inter-observer variability; and (vi) validation against ground-truth bone kinematics (with errors between 1 deg and 22 deg for tibiofemoral rotations and between 3 deg and 10 deg for glenohumeral rotations). Moreover, MKO was applied to various movements (e.g., walking, running, arm elevation). Additional validations, especially for the upper limb, should be undertaken and we recommend a more systematic approach for the evaluation of MKO. In addition, further model development, scaling, and personalization methods are required to better estimate the secondary degrees-of-freedom (DoF).

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.298
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.176 · 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