Deciphering the “Art” in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Variations in Model DevelopmentSource: Journal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2021:;volume( 143 ):;issue: 006::page 061002-1Author:Rooks, Nynke B.
,
Schneider, Marco T. Y.
,
Erdemir, Ahmet
,
Halloran, Jason P.
,
Laz, Peter J.
,
Shelburne, Kevin B.
,
Hume, Donald R.
,
Imhauser, Carl W.
,
Zaylor, William
,
Elmasry, Shady
,
Schwartz, Ariel
,
Chokhandre, Snehal K.
,
Abdollahi Nohouji, Neda
,
Besier,
DOI: 10.1115/1.4050028Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: The use of computational modeling to investigate knee joint biomechanics has increased exponentially over the last few decades. Developing computational models is a creative process where decisions have to be made, subject to the modelers' knowledge and previous experiences, resulting in the “art” of modeling. The long-term goal of the KneeHub project is to understand the influence of subjective decisions on the final outcomes and the reproducibility of computational knee joint models. In this paper, we report on the model development phase of this project, investigating model development decisions and deviations from initial modeling plans. Five teams developed computational knee joint models from the same dataset, and we compared each teams' initial uncalibrated models and their model development workflows. Variations in the software tools and modeling approaches were found, resulting in differences such as the representation of the anatomical knee joint structures in the model. The teams consistently defined the boundary conditions and used the same anatomical coordinate system convention. However, deviations in the anatomical landmarks used to define the coordinate systems were present, resulting in a large spread in the kinematic outputs of the uncalibrated models. The reported differences and similarities in model development and simulation presented here illustrate the importance of the “art” of modeling and how subjective decision-making can lead to variation in model outputs. All teams deviated from their initial modeling plans, indicating that model development is a flexible process and difficult to plan in advance, even for experienced teams.
|
Collections
Show full item record
| contributor author | Rooks, Nynke B. | |
| contributor author | Schneider, Marco T. Y. | |
| contributor author | Erdemir, Ahmet | |
| contributor author | Halloran, Jason P. | |
| contributor author | Laz, Peter J. | |
| contributor author | Shelburne, Kevin B. | |
| contributor author | Hume, Donald R. | |
| contributor author | Imhauser, Carl W. | |
| contributor author | Zaylor, William | |
| contributor author | Elmasry, Shady | |
| contributor author | Schwartz, Ariel | |
| contributor author | Chokhandre, Snehal K. | |
| contributor author | Abdollahi Nohouji, Neda | |
| contributor author | Besier, | |
| date accessioned | 2022-02-05T22:41:43Z | |
| date available | 2022-02-05T22:41:43Z | |
| date copyright | 3/9/2021 12:00:00 AM | |
| date issued | 2021 | |
| identifier issn | 0148-0731 | |
| identifier other | bio_143_06_061002.pdf | |
| identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4277991 | |
| description abstract | The use of computational modeling to investigate knee joint biomechanics has increased exponentially over the last few decades. Developing computational models is a creative process where decisions have to be made, subject to the modelers' knowledge and previous experiences, resulting in the “art” of modeling. The long-term goal of the KneeHub project is to understand the influence of subjective decisions on the final outcomes and the reproducibility of computational knee joint models. In this paper, we report on the model development phase of this project, investigating model development decisions and deviations from initial modeling plans. Five teams developed computational knee joint models from the same dataset, and we compared each teams' initial uncalibrated models and their model development workflows. Variations in the software tools and modeling approaches were found, resulting in differences such as the representation of the anatomical knee joint structures in the model. The teams consistently defined the boundary conditions and used the same anatomical coordinate system convention. However, deviations in the anatomical landmarks used to define the coordinate systems were present, resulting in a large spread in the kinematic outputs of the uncalibrated models. The reported differences and similarities in model development and simulation presented here illustrate the importance of the “art” of modeling and how subjective decision-making can lead to variation in model outputs. All teams deviated from their initial modeling plans, indicating that model development is a flexible process and difficult to plan in advance, even for experienced teams. | |
| publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
| title | Deciphering the “Art” in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Variations in Model Development | |
| type | Journal Paper | |
| journal volume | 143 | |
| journal issue | 6 | |
| journal title | Journal of Biomechanical Engineering | |
| identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4050028 | |
| journal fristpage | 061002-1 | |
| journal lastpage | 061002-12 | |
| page | 12 | |
| tree | Journal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2021:;volume( 143 ):;issue: 006 | |
| contenttype | Fulltext |