Back

A Female Population-Averaged Musculoskeletal Model Outperforms Conventional Male-Based Generic Models in Simulating Female Gait

Stansfield, E.; Kainz, H.

2026-08-27 biophysics
10.64898/2026.08.23.746509 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Most widely used lower-limb musculoskeletal models are derived from male anatomy and adapted to female participants solely by linear scaling, which may not capture sex-specific differences in pelvic and hip geometry. We developed a population-averaged, female lower-limb musculoskeletal model, built from MRI-based models of a cohort of 25 adult women using thin-plate-spline muscle-path mapping, bilateral symmetrisation, and wrapping-surface optimisation. We hypothesised that this average model, adapted to a new individual by standard linear scaling alone, would reproduce that individual's MRI-based model's walking biomechanics more closely than a linearly scaled generic male-based model. We also expected that this advantage would be concentrated in pelvis- and hip-dependent outputs rather than distributed evenly across all joints. Using 5-fold cross-validation, the scaled average-female model and the scaled male model were each compared against the held-out individual's MRI-based model across gait kinematics, joint moments, muscle moment arms, muscle forces/activations, and joint reaction forces. The average-female model outperformed the male model in every output category (Holm-corrected p [≤] *10-5), supporting our primary hypothesis. Consistent with our secondary hypothesis, differences were largest and most sustained for pelvis tilt, hip flexion, and gluteal/adductor moment arms and forces, and smaller for knee and ankle kinematics. Some divergence remained localised to early-stance knee kinematics and patellofemoral loading. The population-averaged female musculoskeletal model is freely available on SimTK https://simtk.org/projects/aver_fem and is recommended for studies involving female participants, particularly when pelvic and hip biomechanics are the primary outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.