INTRODUCTION
Gender-specific musculoskeletal models have played a valuable role in enhancing the prognosis and surgical planning for spinal deformities [1–3]. Another important demographic factor in adult spinal deformity is subject age, but age-specific generic models do not exist. Recognizing the age-dependent decrease in muscular max-isometric-force—a key indicator of muscular strength closely linked with muscle cross-sectional area—this study integrates age considerations into the prevailing gender-based models. By doing so, we aim to provide a more sophisticated tool that improves conventional gender-based paradigms. Our objective is to evaluate whether age-modified muscle properties can refine load predictions in gender-specific musculoskeletal models.
METHODS
We utilized a musculoskeletal modeling framework (OpenSim 3.3; Figure 1), building on established studies [4,5]. Featuring 250 subjects from the Framingham Heart Study [6], the dataset was partitioned into training (80%, N = 200) and testing sets (20%, N = 50). We simulated 11 different static postures, including neutral standing and various trunk flexion and extension positions, each chosen based on recommendations of Mokhtarzadeh et al. [7] to elicit maximum Load-to-Strength ratios. Using regression analysis on the training set, for each primary muscle group, we identified a relationship between subjects’ age and max-isometric-force. In the testing phase, the derived equations were employed to recalibrate the generic max-isometric-force values based on age. The fully subject-specific models, wherein both spine curvature and muscle properties were tailored to the specifics of the subject, were treated as the gold standard. The difference in axial compression load prediction from L5 to T1 between the modified models were then compared against the fully subject-specific models to evaluate the efficacy of the age-adjusted generic models.
RESULTS
The established relationships between age and the max-isometric-force of major muscle groups (example: Trapezius; Figure 2) revealed a notable enhancement in load prediction when age-adjusted models were employed. There was a marked reduction in the relative difference from 7.4% (traditional gender-based model) to 4.7% when employing the age-adjusted models—a 37% decrease in error (Figure 3). This percentage decrease in error was relatively consistent across the 11 simulated postures, with the relative difference percentage falling below 6% for 10 postures and under 5% for 8 of them.
DISCUSSION
The integration of age adjustments into muscle properties improved load prediction of our biomechanical simulations, bringing them closer to what we achieve with fully subject-specific models. This improvement was consistent across different postures, highlighting the effectiveness of age-adjusted method. In clinical settings, where custom muscle data is scarce, our findings suggest that using age-adjusted models is a better alternative to the traditional, less personalized models. They offer a practical solution for patient assessment and treatment planning. Therefore, researchers should consider adopting age-adjusted modeling as a standard practice to enhance the relevance and accuracy of their work.
Figure 1. Musculoskeletal models in various postures.
Figure 2. Regression analysis of age vs max-isometric-force. The blue dashed lines indicate the average (generic) max-isometric-force value.
Figure 3. Error reduction after age adjustment (37% on average) with errors below 6% for 10 of 11 postures.