Collaborators Meeting

Date: October 5, 2017

Time: 1:00 PM US/Eastern

Means: Conference Call


  1. Ahmet Erdemir
  2. Jason Halloran
  3. Carl Imhauser
  4. Peter Laz
  5. Kevin Shelburne


  1. Overall approach.
  2. Administrative processes.
  3. Gatherings and outreach.
  4. Immediate scientific activities.
  5. Scholarly workload sharing.
  6. Other.

Immediate Action Items:


  1. Overall approach.
    • Ahmet discussed following the workflow in the resubmission. The approach was more structured after the rewrite. Pete asked if this change would matter. Ahmet noted that the specific aims did not change from the first submission and this shouldn't be an issue.
  2. Administrative processes.
    • Ahmet had previously asked the collaborators to submit administrative documents to set up subcontracts. CSU and DU responded, HSS response was missing one document; ABI has not responded yet.
    • Tina Morrison was informed of the grant and her possible involvement in regulatory research aspects of the activity.
    • The first budget year is a 9 month period with the 12 month budget after ~10% budget cut.
  3. Gatherings and outreach.
    • Ahmet proposed a face-to-face kick off meeting, possibly in Cleveland and in either December or January. Pete favors an earlier date. Ahmet will reach out to Thor to see when he can travel.
    • Ahmet mentioned outreach regarding the grant and modeling and simulation of the knee in general. The meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) is one possibility; IMAG/MSM is another. CSU, DU and HSS are already going to the ORS.
      • Carl proposed a possible workshop related to the grant for the 2019 ORS, or another meeting.
      • Pete mentioned that the World Congress of Biomechanics will be in Dubling during July 2018. Abstracts are due early December 2017.
      • Ahmet mentioned a webinar for the IMAG/MSM possible through the Committee on Credible Practice of Modeling & Simulation in Healthcare.

  4. Immediate scientific activities.
    • The project web site is already up; search "kneehub" on SimTK. The site will detail the steps and data flow from/to each group as well as the portal for model comparison (potentially to be performed by collaborators in FDA).
    • The site will also detail what exact data from the Open Knee(s) and DU data sets the groups will utilize.
  5. Scholarly workload sharing.
    • Ahmet mentioned community based studies and relevant publications that could be driven by this grant (as a group). All work supported by this grant should reference the grant.
    • Ahmet mentioned providing opportunity to "younger" faculty for review papers relevant to the project. Jason summarized one possible manuscript as an overview/review of current knee modeling efforts.
    • Ahmet discussed working with Tina on scholarly work with a regulatory focus.
  6. Other.
    • Carl asked about a clinical advisory board, which is to maintain a focus on possible clinical translation as the grant progress. Ahmet proposed an action item for all to reach out to clinicians that may be interested in being a part of the advisory board.
    • Carl asked about how the project will roll out. Ahmet will outline the overall scientific process on the wiki. In short, the teams will start with data from two knees, one from the Open Knee(s) and the other from DU. The groups will prospectively outline their knee modeling development approach (in detail) and will proceed to develop models of both knees according to their plan (deviations will be documented). After, model development (does not include calibration, tuning, etc.), the model components, outcomes, etc. will be reviewed potentially by collaborators on the regulatory side. Then the individual groups will move on to model calibration and evaluation; then model benchmarking and evaluation, and so on. At each step in the modeling and simulation lifecycle, the teams will first document and submit the initial plan, the work will proceed, the teams will document deviations, and submit final outcome, e.g., models and simulations results, for review. A blinded study is not possible with the approach but good faith efforts will differentiate and document data used for each stages of modeling. Before each stage starts, we can decide as a group what components of data will be earmarked for use within the stage, e.g. for calibration vs benchmarking. The teams will have freedom to utilize data sets earmarked for a certain stage of modeling as they see fit but whatever used needs to be documented.
    • Ahmet and Carl noted that the "cost" of model development should be documented (in addition to the computational time for actual running of simulations).
    • Over the coming months details about operational execution will be provided to the teams. Ahmet mentioned that modeling should not begin until we have specifications.
    • Ahmet can provide what was done for Open Knee(s) in terms of protocol documentation.
    • Pete mentioned examples of modeling credibility rubrics, which the group could also use.

2017-10-05 (last edited 2017-10-11 14:07:24 by aerdemir)