• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • ASME
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • ASME
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Deciphering the “Art” in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Model Benchmarking

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    bio-25-1200.pdf (1.328Mb)
    Date
    2026
    Author
    Nazem, Maryam
    Andreassen, Thor E.
    Kim, Nancy
    Moyle, Kate
    Besier, Thor F.
    Halloran, Jason P.
    Imhauser, Carl W.
    Chokhandre, Snehal
    Schneider, Marco T. Y.
    Elmasry, Shady
    Zaylor, William
    Shelburne, Kevin B.
    Erdemir, Ahmet
    Laz, Peter J.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Abstract. Given the strong ties to data sharing and the responsible use of resources, reproducibility of modeling and simulation practice is of paramount importance in science. Computational models in orthopedics provide insight into healthy and injured joint mechanics and can inform clinical decision-making. The KneeHub project investigated the influence of modelers' decisions and thus their “art” in simulation and modeling; five teams developed and calibrated knee models using the same experimental data. Model benchmarking evaluated the predictive ability of the models under loading scenarios that were not considered in the development and calibration process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predictions of knee-specific joint biomechanics for benchmark scenarios of simulating a resected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) using models of one knee and a combined pivot shift loading using models of another knee. The models predicted the major trends in kinematics and kinetics; however, differences were observed in comparison to experimental data and between teams. Model-to-experiment root-mean-square (RMS) errors were up to 6.6±2.4 mm in anterior–posterior (AP) translation, 13.5±12.9 deg in internal–external (IE) rotation, and 5.3±3.4 deg in varus–valgus (VV) rotation; errors were largest in internal–external rotation, and standard deviations reflected differences between teams. While calibrated models were tuned to a similar set of conditions (albeit with different decisions), the optimized stiffness and reference length/strain of ligament structures may not fully reproduce the contributions of these structures to joint kinematics that were measured experimentally in the benchmark scenarios. As researchers often extend models beyond the conditions used to calibrate them, quantifying model accuracy and limitations with benchmarking represents a crucial step toward reproducibility and can help establish best practices for credible modeling in our community.
    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4316759
    Collections
    • Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV