Computational biomechanics of human knee joint in stair ascent: Muscle‐ligament‐contact forces and comparison with level walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
About a third of knee joint disorders originate from the patellofemoral (PF) site that makes stair ascent a difficult activity for patients. A detailed finite element model of the knee joint is coupled to a lower extremity musculoskeletal model to simulate the stance phase of stair ascent. It is driven by the mean of measurements on the hip-knee-ankle moments-angles as well as ground reaction forces reported in healthy individuals. Predicted muscle activities compare well to the recorded electromyography data. Peak forces in quadriceps (3.87 BW, body weight, at 20% instance in our 607 N subject), medial hamstrings (0.77 BW at 20%), and gastrocnemii (1.21 BW at 80%) are estimated. Due to much greater flexion angles-moments in the first half of stance, large PF contact forces (peak of 3.1 BW at 20% stance) and stresses (peak of 4.83 MPa at 20% stance) are estimated that exceed their peaks in level walking by fourfold and twofold, respectively. Compared with level walking, ACL forces diminish in the first half of stance but substantially increase later in the second half (peak of 0.76 BW at 75% stance). Under nearly similar contact forces at 20% of stance, the contact stress on the tibiofemoral (TF) medial plateau reaches a peak (9.68 MPa) twice that on the PF joint suggesting the vulnerability of both joints. Compared with walking, stair ascent increases peak ACL force and both peak TF and PF contact stresses. Reductions in the knee flexion moment and/or angle appear as a viable strategy to mitigate internal loads and pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".