On the prediction of tibiofemoral contact forces for healthy individuals and osteoarthritis patients during gait: a comparative study of regression methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a public health problem affecting millions of people worldwide. The intensity of the tibiofemoral contact forces is related to cartilage degeneration, and so is the importance of quantifying joint loads during daily activities. Although simulation with musculoskeletal models has been used to calculate joint loads, it demands high-cost equipment and a very time-consuming process. This study aimed to evaluate consolidated machine learning algorithms to predict tibiofemoral forces during gait analysis of healthy individuals and knee OA patients. Also, we evaluated three different datasets to train each model, considering different combinations of primary kinematic and kinetic data, and post-processing data. We evaluated 14 patients with severe unilateral knee OA and 14 healthy individuals during 3-5 gait trials. Data were split into 70% and 30% of the samples as training and test data. Test data was independently evaluated considering a mixture of pathological and healthy individuals, and only OA and Control patients. The main results showed that accurate predictions of the tibiofemoral contact forces were achieved using machine learning methods and that the predictions were sensitive to changes in the input data as training. The present study provided insights into the most promising regressions methods to predict knee contact forces representing an important starting point for the broader application of biomechanical analysis in clinical environments.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".