Lower Limb Assistive Device Design Optimization Using Musculoskeletal Modeling:A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many individuals with lower limb amputations or neuromuscular impairments face mobility challenges attributable to suboptimal assistive device design. Forward dynamic modeling and simulation of human walking using conventional biomechanical gait models offer an alternative to intuition-based assistive device design, providing insight into the biomechanics underlying pathological gait. Musculoskeletal models enable better understanding of prosthesis and/or exoskeleton contributions to the human musculoskeletal system, and device and user contributions to both body support and propulsion during gait. This paper reviews current literature that have used forward dynamic simulation of clinical population musculoskeletal models to perform assistive device design optimization using optimal control, optimal tracking, computed muscle control (CMC) and reflex-based control. Musculoskeletal model complexity and assumptions inhibit forward dynamic musculoskeletal modeling in its current state, hindering computational assistive device design optimization. Future recommendations include validating musculoskeletal models and resultant assistive device designs, developing less computationally expensive forward dynamic musculoskeletal modeling methods, and developing more efficient patient-specific musculoskeletal model generation methods to enable personalized assistive device optimization.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".