Muscle-Driven Total Knee Replacement Stability with Virtual Ligaments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee joint stability comprises passive (ligaments), active (muscles), and static (articular congruency) contributors. The stability of total knee replacement (TKR) implants can be assessed pre-clinically using joint motion simulators. However, contemporary testing methods with these platforms do not accurately reproduce the biomechanical contributions of passive stabilizers, active stabilizers, or both. A key component of joint stability is therefore missing from laxity tests. A recently developed muscle actuator system (MAS) pairs the quadriceps-driven motion capabilities of an Oxford knee simulator with the prescribed displacements and laxity testing methods of a VIVO robotic knee testing system, which also includes virtual ligament capabilities. Using a TKR-embedded non-cadaveric joint analogue, TKR with two different virtual ligament models were compared to TKR with no active ligaments. Laxity limits were then obtained for both developed models using the conventional style of laxity testing (the VIVO's force/displacement control) and compared with results obtained under similar conditions with the MAS (gravity-dependent muscle control). Differences in joint control methods identified the need for muscle forces providing active joint stability, while differences in the effects of the virtual ligament models identified the importance of physiological representations of collateral ligaments during testing.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it