Predicting Tibia-Fibula Geometry and Density From Anatomical Landmarks Via Statistical Appearance Model: Influence of Errors on Finite Element-Calculated Bone Strain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State-of-the-art participant-specific finite element models require advanced medical imaging to quantify bone geometry and density distribution; access to and cost of imaging is prohibitive to the use of this approach. Statistical appearance models may enable estimation of participants' geometry and density in the absence of medical imaging. The purpose of this study was to: (1) quantify errors associated with predicting tibia-fibula geometry and density distribution from skin-mounted landmarks using a statistical appearance model and (2) quantify how those errors propagate to finite element-calculated bone strain. Participant-informed models of the tibia and fibula were generated for thirty participants from height and sex and from twelve skin-mounted landmarks using a statistical appearance model. Participant-specific running loads, calculated using gait data and a musculoskeletal model, were applied to participant-informed and CT-based models to predict bone strain using the finite element method. Participant-informed meshes illustrated median geometry and density distribution errors of 4.39-5.17 mm and 0.116-0.142 g/cm3, respectively, resulting in large errors in strain distribution (median RMSE = 476-492 με), peak strain (limits of agreement =±27-34%), and strained volume (limits of agreement =±104-202%). These findings indicate that neither skin-mounted landmark nor height and sex-based predictions could adequately approximate CT-derived participant-specific geometry, density distribution, or finite element-predicted bone strain and therefore should not be used for analyses comparing between groups or individuals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".