Ning Guo , Allan Maas , Thomas M. Grupp , Adam Trepczynski , Philipp Damm , William R. Taylor , Seyyed Hamed Hosseini Nasab
{"title":"单靠膝关节接触力不足以验证肌肉骨骼模型中的关节力学。","authors":"Ning Guo , Allan Maas , Thomas M. Grupp , Adam Trepczynski , Philipp Damm , William R. Taylor , Seyyed Hamed Hosseini Nasab","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Musculoskeletal modelling plays a crucial role in understanding joint mechanics, particularly in applications such as surgical planning and implant design. As a common approach, these models are generally validated by assessing their ability to predict knee contact forces. However, such validation may not necessarily guarantee an accurate reconstruction of the complete joint biomechanics, where predicted kinematic patterns are often neglected, which is critical for understanding soft tissue loading and wear/interface conditions. In this study, we used a musculoskeletal model of the knee incorporating detailed representations of articular contact and soft tissue constraints to explore the relationship between the rigor of knee contact force validation and uncertainties in kinematic predictions. A Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 variations in muscle activation strategies was conducted, using a cost function that minimized the sum of squared muscle activations. The resulting outcomes of level walking and squatting simulations were then analysed.</div><div>Our findings indicate that simulations yielding appropriate knee contact force estimates do not necessarily guarantee precise predictions of joint kinematics. Specifically, extending the acceptable root mean square error range for knee contact force estimates by 15 % of body weight led to an increase in the uncertainty of kinematic outcomes, reaching approximately 8 mm in translations and 10° in joint rotations. Stricter force validation criteria may mitigate, but not eliminate, inaccuracies in kinematic predictions. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive validation that includes both kinetic and kinematic data to achieve robust modelling outcomes. This is especially critical in applications requiring precise joint mechanics, such as implant design and <em>in silico</em> wear prediction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 112980"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knee contact force alone is insufficient to validate joint mechanics in musculoskeletal models\",\"authors\":\"Ning Guo , Allan Maas , Thomas M. Grupp , Adam Trepczynski , Philipp Damm , William R. Taylor , Seyyed Hamed Hosseini Nasab\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112980\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Musculoskeletal modelling plays a crucial role in understanding joint mechanics, particularly in applications such as surgical planning and implant design. As a common approach, these models are generally validated by assessing their ability to predict knee contact forces. However, such validation may not necessarily guarantee an accurate reconstruction of the complete joint biomechanics, where predicted kinematic patterns are often neglected, which is critical for understanding soft tissue loading and wear/interface conditions. In this study, we used a musculoskeletal model of the knee incorporating detailed representations of articular contact and soft tissue constraints to explore the relationship between the rigor of knee contact force validation and uncertainties in kinematic predictions. A Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 variations in muscle activation strategies was conducted, using a cost function that minimized the sum of squared muscle activations. The resulting outcomes of level walking and squatting simulations were then analysed.</div><div>Our findings indicate that simulations yielding appropriate knee contact force estimates do not necessarily guarantee precise predictions of joint kinematics. Specifically, extending the acceptable root mean square error range for knee contact force estimates by 15 % of body weight led to an increase in the uncertainty of kinematic outcomes, reaching approximately 8 mm in translations and 10° in joint rotations. Stricter force validation criteria may mitigate, but not eliminate, inaccuracies in kinematic predictions. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive validation that includes both kinetic and kinematic data to achieve robust modelling outcomes. This is especially critical in applications requiring precise joint mechanics, such as implant design and <em>in silico</em> wear prediction.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biomechanics\",\"volume\":\"192 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112980\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"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/S0021929025004920\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929025004920","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Knee contact force alone is insufficient to validate joint mechanics in musculoskeletal models
Musculoskeletal modelling plays a crucial role in understanding joint mechanics, particularly in applications such as surgical planning and implant design. As a common approach, these models are generally validated by assessing their ability to predict knee contact forces. However, such validation may not necessarily guarantee an accurate reconstruction of the complete joint biomechanics, where predicted kinematic patterns are often neglected, which is critical for understanding soft tissue loading and wear/interface conditions. In this study, we used a musculoskeletal model of the knee incorporating detailed representations of articular contact and soft tissue constraints to explore the relationship between the rigor of knee contact force validation and uncertainties in kinematic predictions. A Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 variations in muscle activation strategies was conducted, using a cost function that minimized the sum of squared muscle activations. The resulting outcomes of level walking and squatting simulations were then analysed.
Our findings indicate that simulations yielding appropriate knee contact force estimates do not necessarily guarantee precise predictions of joint kinematics. Specifically, extending the acceptable root mean square error range for knee contact force estimates by 15 % of body weight led to an increase in the uncertainty of kinematic outcomes, reaching approximately 8 mm in translations and 10° in joint rotations. Stricter force validation criteria may mitigate, but not eliminate, inaccuracies in kinematic predictions. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive validation that includes both kinetic and kinematic data to achieve robust modelling outcomes. This is especially critical in applications requiring precise joint mechanics, such as implant design and in silico wear prediction.
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.