Direct Validation of Model-Predicted Muscle Forces in the Cat Hindlimb During Locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various methods are available for simulating the movement patterns of musculoskeletal systems and determining individual muscle forces, but the results obtained from these methods have not been rigorously validated against experiment. The aim of this study was to compare model predictions of muscle force derived for a cat hindlimb during locomotion against direct measurements of muscle force obtained in vivo. The cat hindlimb was represented as a 5-segment, 13-degrees-of-freedom (DOF), articulated linkage actuated by 25 Hill-type muscle-tendon units (MTUs). Individual muscle forces were determined by combining gait data with two widely used computational methods-static optimization and computed muscle control (CMC)-available in opensim, an open-source musculoskeletal modeling and simulation environment. The forces developed by the soleus, medial gastrocnemius (MG), and tibialis anterior muscles during free locomotion were measured using buckle transducers attached to the tendons. Muscle electromyographic activity and MTU length changes were also measured and compared against the corresponding data predicted by the model. Model-predicted muscle forces, activation levels, and MTU length changes were consistent with the corresponding quantities obtained from experiment. The calculated values of muscle force obtained from static optimization agreed more closely with experiment than those derived from CMC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".