Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Sensitivity of subject-specific upper body musculoskeletal model predictions to mass scaling methods.
Liu, Tao; Hulleck, Abdul Aziz; El-Rich, Marwan.
Afiliación
  • Liu T; Faculty of Kinesiology, Human Performance Lab, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Hulleck AA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
  • El-Rich M; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; Healthcare Engineering Innovation Center, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Electronic address: marwan.elrich@ku.ac.ae.
Comput Biol Med ; 165: 107376, 2023 10.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37611422
Accurate predictions of spinal loads in subject-specific musculoskeletal models require precise body segment parameters, including segment mass and center of mass (CoM) locations. Existing upper body models often assume a constant percentage of total body mass to calculate segmental masses, disregarding inter-individual variability and limiting their predictive capacity. This study evaluated the sensitivity of subject-specific upper body musculoskeletal model predictions to body mass scaling methods. The upper body segmental masses and corresponding CoM of six male subjects with varying body mass indices were computed using two mass scaling methods: the constant-percentage-based (CPB) scaling method, commonly used in AnyBody software; and our recently developed body-shape-based (BSB) method. Subsequently, these values were used by a validated musculoskeletal model to predict the muscle and disc forces in upright and flexed postures. The discrepancies between the results of the two scaling methods were compared across subjects and postures. Maximum deviations in thorax masses reached up to 7.5% of total body weight (TBW) in overweight subjects, while maximum CoM location differences of up to 35 mm were observed in normal weight subjects. The root mean squared errors (RMSE) of the CPB results, calculated with the BSB results as baseline, showed that the muscle and shear forces of the two scaling methods were quite similar (<4.5% of TBW). Though, there were small to moderate differences in compressive forces (6.5-16.0% of TBW). Thus, the compressive forces predicted with CPB method should be used with caution, particularly for overweight and obese subjects.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Columna Vertebral / Sobrepeso Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Comput Biol Med Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Columna Vertebral / Sobrepeso Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Comput Biol Med Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos