Assessment of reporting practices and reproducibility potential of a cohort of published studies in computational knee biomechanics.

Reproducible research serves as a pillar of the scientific method and is a foundation for scientific advancement. However, estimates for irreproducibility of preclinical science range from 75% to 90%. The importance of reproducible science has not been assessed in the context of mechanics-based modeling of human joints such as the knee, despite this being an area that has seen dramatic growth. Framed in the context of five experienced teams currently documenting knee modeling procedures, the aim of this study was to evaluate reporting and the perceived potential for reproducibility across studies the teams viewed as important contributions to the literature. A cohort of studies was selected by polling, which resulted in an assessment of nine studies as opposed to a broader analysis across the literature. Using a published checklist for reporting of modeling features, the cohort was evaluated for both "reporting" and their potential to be "reproduced," which was delineated into six major modeling categories and three subcategories. Logistic regression analysis revealed that for individual modeling categories, the proportion of "reported" occurrences ranged from 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.23, 0.41] to 0.77, 95% CI: [0.68, 0.86]. The proportion of whether a category was perceived as "reproducible" ranged from 0.22, 95% CI: [0.15, 0.31] to 0.44, 95% CI: [0.35, 0.55]. The relatively low ratios highlight an opportunity to improve reporting and reproducibility of knee modeling studies. Ongoing efforts, including our findings, contribute to a dialogue that facilitates adoption of practices that provide both credibility and translation possibilities.

A Method to Compare Heterogeneous Types of Bone and Cartilage Meshes.

Accurately capturing the bone and cartilage morphology and generating a mesh remains a critical step in the workflow of computational knee joint modeling. Currently, there is no standardized method to compare meshes of different element types and nodal densities, making comparisons across research teams a significant challenge. The aim of this paper is to describe a method to quantify differences in knee joint bone and cartilages meshes, independent of bone and cartilage mesh topology. Bone mesh-to-mesh distances, subchondral bone boundaries, and cartilage thicknesses from meshes of any type of mesh are obtained using a series of steps involving registration, resampling, and radial basis function fitting after which the comparisons are performed. Subchondral bone boundaries and cartilage thicknesses are calculated and visualized in a common frame of reference for comparison. The established method is applied to models developed by five modeling teams. Our approach to obtain bone mesh-to-mesh distances decreased the divergence seen in selecting a reference mesh (i.e., comparing mesh A-to-B versus mesh B-to-A). In general, the bone morphology was similar across teams. The cartilage thicknesses for all models were calculated and the mean absolute cartilage thickness difference was presented, the articulating areas had the best agreement across teams. The teams showed disagreement on the subchondral bone boundaries. The method presented in this paper allows for objective comparisons of bone and cartilage geometry that is agnostic to mesh type and nodal density.

Deciphering the "Art" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Variations in Model Development.

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.