Effects of Using Generic vs. Subject-Specific Muscle Properties on Spinal Load Prediction Across Different Posture Simulations

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS

Journal of biomechanics Pub Date : 2025-05-05 DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112741

Nima Ashjaee , Sidney Fels , John Street , Thomas Oxland

{"title":"Effects of Using Generic vs. Subject-Specific Muscle Properties on Spinal Load Prediction Across Different Posture Simulations","authors":"Nima Ashjaee , Sidney Fels , John Street , Thomas Oxland","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Subject-specific musculoskeletal models hold promise for adult spinal deformity management. However, fully subject-specific models require subject-specific soft-tissue properties not typically available in clinical settings. Models created using generic properties are more accessible but potentially less accurate. The objective of this study was to identify which biomechanical properties of muscle function, and in which specific body positions, exhibit significant differences when implementing generic versus subject-specific properties.</div><div>Using OpenSim, we analyzed 250 subject-specific models, focusing on four muscle parameters: geometry-path, maximum-isometric-force, optimal-fiber-length, and tendon-slack-length across 11 postures, encompassing standing and flexed postures. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated the impact of muscle parameters on spinal compression loads. Differences in compression load between the models with subject-specific and generic data were compared statistically using non-parametric methods.</div><div>Subject-specific geometry-path and maximum-isometric-force significantly influenced spinal compression loads, with mean differences of 13 % and 8 %, respectively. Differences were posture-dependent (geometry-path <em>p</em> < 0.001; max-isometric-force <em>p</em> = 0.005). Optimal-fiber-length (<em>p</em> = 0.053) and tendon-slack-length (<em>p</em> = 0.680) showed minimal impact (∼1% difference). Flexed postures were more sensitive to generic muscle parameters, with mean differences of 17 % (geometry-path) and 6 % (max-isometric-force), compared to standing (6 % and 4 %, respectively).</div><div>The pronounced deviations observed in flexion simulations emphasized the necessity of subject-specific data in such simulations. However, when subject-specific data is not available, simulations based on standing postures are the least affected by the use of generic properties.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"188 ","pages":"Article 112741"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025002532","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Subject-specific musculoskeletal models hold promise for adult spinal deformity management. However, fully subject-specific models require subject-specific soft-tissue properties not typically available in clinical settings. Models created using generic properties are more accessible but potentially less accurate. The objective of this study was to identify which biomechanical properties of muscle function, and in which specific body positions, exhibit significant differences when implementing generic versus subject-specific properties.

Using OpenSim, we analyzed 250 subject-specific models, focusing on four muscle parameters: geometry-path, maximum-isometric-force, optimal-fiber-length, and tendon-slack-length across 11 postures, encompassing standing and flexed postures. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated the impact of muscle parameters on spinal compression loads. Differences in compression load between the models with subject-specific and generic data were compared statistically using non-parametric methods.

Subject-specific geometry-path and maximum-isometric-force significantly influenced spinal compression loads, with mean differences of 13 % and 8 %, respectively. Differences were posture-dependent (geometry-path p < 0.001; max-isometric-force p = 0.005). Optimal-fiber-length (p = 0.053) and tendon-slack-length (p = 0.680) showed minimal impact (∼1% difference). Flexed postures were more sensitive to generic muscle parameters, with mean differences of 17 % (geometry-path) and 6 % (max-isometric-force), compared to standing (6 % and 4 %, respectively).

The pronounced deviations observed in flexion simulations emphasized the necessity of subject-specific data in such simulations. However, when subject-specific data is not available, simulations based on standing postures are the least affected by the use of generic properties.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在不同姿势模拟中，使用通用与受试者特定肌肉特性对脊柱负荷预测的影响

主体特异性肌肉骨骼模型有望用于成人脊柱畸形管理。然而，完全特定于受试者的模型需要特定于受试者的软组织特性，这在临床环境中是不常见的。使用泛型属性创建的模型更容易访问，但可能不太准确。本研究的目的是确定肌肉功能的哪些生物力学特性，以及在哪些特定的体位中，在实现通用特性与受试者特定特性时表现出显著差异。使用OpenSim，我们分析了250个受试者特定的模型，重点关注四个肌肉参数：几何路径，最大等距力，最佳纤维长度和肌腱松弛长度，跨越11种姿势，包括站立和屈曲姿势。线性混合效应模型评估肌肉参数对脊柱压缩负荷的影响。使用非参数方法对具有受试者特定数据和通用数据的模型之间的压缩负荷差异进行统计比较。受试者特定的几何路径和最大等距力显著影响脊柱压缩负荷，平均差异分别为13%和8%。差异是姿势相关的(几何路径p <；0.001;最大等距力p = 0.005)。最佳纤维长度（p = 0.053）和肌腱松弛长度（p = 0.680）的影响最小（差异约1%）。屈曲姿势对一般肌肉参数更敏感，与站立（分别为6%和4%）相比，平均差异为17%（几何路径）和6%（最大等距力）。在屈曲模拟中观察到的明显偏差强调了在此类模拟中特定受试者数据的必要性。然而，当没有特定主题的数据时，基于站立姿势的模拟受通用属性的影响最小。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

4.20%

发文量

345

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.