MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806018967 · doi:10.1123/jab.2017-0262

Prediction of Knee Joint Contact Forces From External Measures Using Principal Component Prediction and Reconstruction

2018· article· en· W2806018967 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Saliba, Allison L. Clouthier, Scott C.E. Brandon, Michael J. Rainbow, Kevin J. Deluzio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomechanics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact forceKnee JointGaitOsteoarthritisPrincipal component analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisBiomechanicsWaveformPhysical therapyComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineArtificial intelligencePhysicsSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abnormal loading of the knee joint contributes to the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis. Gait retraining is a noninvasive intervention that aims to reduce knee loads by providing audible, visual, or haptic feedback of gait parameters. The computational expense of joint contact force prediction has limited real-time feedback to surrogate measures of the contact force, such as the knee adduction moment. We developed a method to predict knee joint contact forces using motion analysis and a statistical regression model that can be implemented in near real-time. Gait waveform variables were deconstructed using principal component analysis, and a linear regression was used to predict the principal component scores of the contact force waveforms. Knee joint contact force waveforms were reconstructed using the predicted scores. We tested our method using a heterogenous population of asymptomatic controls and subjects with knee osteoarthritis. The reconstructed contact force waveforms had mean (SD) root mean square differences of 0.17 (0.05) bodyweight compared with the contact forces predicted by a musculoskeletal model. Our method successfully predicted subject-specific shape features of contact force waveforms and is a potentially powerful tool in biofeedback and clinical gait analysis.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied BiomechanicsSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207