Back

Personalization of Closed-Chain Shoulder Models Yields High Kinematic Accuracy for Multiple Motions

Hammond, C. V.; Henninger, H. B.; Fregly, B. J.; Gustafson, J. A.

2024-12-22 bioengineering
10.1101/2024.12.19.629415 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The shoulder joint complex is prone to musculoskeletal issues, such as rotator cuff-related pain, which affect two-thirds of adults and often result in suboptimal treatment outcomes. Current musculoskeletal models used to understand shoulder biomechanics are limited by challenges in personalization, inaccuracies in predicting joint and muscle loads, and an inability to simulate anatomically accurate motions. To address these deficiencies, we developed a novel, personalized modeling framework capable of calibrating subject-specific joint centers and functional axes for the shoulder complex. Leveraging in vivo biplane fluoroscopy data and the recent Joint Model Personalization Tool from the Neuromusculoskeletal Modeling Pipeline, we optimized joint parameters and body scale factors for shoulder models with varying degrees of freedom (DOFs). We initially created and tested open-chain scapula-only models (3DOF, 4DOF, and 5DOF) and found that increasing DOFs improved accuracy, with the 5 DOF model yielding the lowest marker distance errors (average = 0.8 mm, maximum = 5.2 mm) as compared to biplane fluorscopy data of the scapula across eight movement trials. We subsequently created closed-chain shoulder models incorporating scapula, clavicle, and humerus bodies. We found closed-chain shoulder models with 5 DOFs for the scapula achieved the highest accuracy (average = 0.9 mm, maximum = 5.7 mm) and showed consistent performance across subjects (n=3) in leave-one-out cross-validation tests (average marker distance errors = 1.0-1.4 mm). This framework minimizes errors in joint kinematics and provides a foundation for future models incorporating personalized musculature and advanced simulations, enhancing its potential clinical utility for rehabilitation and surgical planning.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.6%
2
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.1%
4
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.0%
6
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.6%
8
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.6%
9
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
12
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
15
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
18
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.6%
22
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 41%
0.5%
24
Bone
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%