MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410338461 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01677-0

Integrating personalized shape prediction, biomechanical modeling, and wearables for bone stress prediction in runners

2025· article· en· W4410338461 on OpenAlexaff
Liangliang Xiang, Yaodong Gu, Kaili Deng, Zixiang Gao, Vickie Shim, Alan Wang, Justin Fernandez

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Zhejiang ProvinceScience Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsWearable computerStress (linguistics)Computer scienceStress fracturesPredictive modellingMedicineMachine learningPhysical therapyEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Running biomechanics studies the mechanical forces experienced during running to improve performance and prevent injuries. This study presents the development of a digital twin for predicting bone stress in runners. The digital twin leverages a domain adaptation-based Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) algorithm, informed by wearable sensor data, to dynamically simulate the structural behavior of foot bones under running conditions. Data from fifty participants, categorized as rearfoot and non-rearfoot strikers, were used to create personalized 3D foot models and finite element simulations. Two nine-axis inertial sensors captured three-axis acceleration data during running. The LSTM neural network with domain adaptation proved optimal for predicting bone stress in key foot bones-specifically the metatarsals, calcaneus, and talus-during the mid-stance and push-off phases (RMSE < 8.35 MPa). This non-invasive, cost-effective approach represents a significant advancement for precision health, contributing to the understanding and prevention of running-related fracture injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207