Collaborators Meeting

Date: March 12, 2018

Time: 4:30 PM US/Central

Means: In person at ORS 2018 and Skype

Attendees:

  1. Jason Halloran (CSU)
  2. Neda Abdollahi (CSU)
  3. Will Zaylor (CSU)
  4. Carl Imhauser (HSS)
  5. Hamid Jahandar, MS (HSS)
  6. Shady Elmasry, PhD (HSS)
  7. Peter Laz (DU)
  8. Kevin Shelburne (DU)
  9. Thor Besier (ABI - called in over Skype)
  10. Nynke Rooks (PhD student at ABI - called in over Skype)
  11. Marco Schneider (postdoc at ABI - called in over Skype)
  12. Ahmet Erdemir (CC - called in over Skype)

Agenda:

  1. Project timeline.

    • Goal. To agree upon the proposed timeline for project activities.

  2. Data resource selection.

    • Goal. To decide upon which knees to use from Open Knee(s) and University of Denver data sets.

  3. Model development phase planning.

    • Goal 1. To decide upon what data to earmark for model development and in what form.

    • Goal 2. To decide upon the exact modeling outcomes for the phase.

    • Goal 3. To agree upon required level of detail for workflow documentation.

    • Goal 4. To agree upon the strategy to deliver workflow documentation (specifications and protocol deviations) and modeling outcomes to project site.

  4. Manuscript on knee modeling workflows.

    • Goal. To agree upon the manuscript outline and workload distribution.

  5. Review action items from past meetings.

Immediate Action Items:

Notes:

  1. The participants went over the project timeline on the wiki. All were in agreement.
  2. Ahmet and Kevin provided candidates from Open Knee(s) and University of Denver data sets, respectively. Ahmet recommended oks003 from Open Knee(s) (male donor) and DU02 from University of Denver (female donor). Ahmet described that the donors of these knees had normal BMI. The group discussed the importance of completeness of data rather than the quality of the specimen. All were in agreement with the selection.
  3. The participants discussed planning of the model development phase.
    • For Goal 1, Ahmet noted his intention to provide MRI sets from oks003 and CT, MRI, and ligament insertions from DU02. All were in agreement. There was a discussion on the similarities of MRI between Open Knee(s) and Denver data. Open Knee(s) has multiple modalities including general purpose, cartilage, and multi-planar soft tissue imaging. Denver MRI is cartilage focused.
    • For Goal 2, Ahmet mentioned that the end-point deliverables will be Working model (with a simulation case to be decided upon), segmentations, geometries (surfaces and meshes), and constitutive models. All were in agreement.
    • In regard to Goal 3, Ahmet indicated that the required level of detail of specifications should aim for the possibility to reproduce the workflow by other teams, i.e. not by lay people but by someone who has some experience in knee modeling. Carl noted that 2 months timeline to write up the specification may be difficult for the model development phase. He noted the importance of prospective documentation (specifications) and the documentation of rationale for protocol deviations.
    • In regard to Goal 4, Ahmet described the possibility to use the project site, in particular downloads and documentation sections to collect specifications, protocol deviations, and modeling outcomes. He will be the gatekeeper.
    • Ahmet will provide documentation to guide the groups in regard to these discussions. The teams will meet late March or early April to finalize the planning phase of model development.
  4. Jason went over the outline of manuscript on knee modeling workflows.
    • The first task is to make a list of knee modeling studies suitable for this work. All teams are expected to deliver a ranked list of knee modeling studies.
    • Jason described the purpose of the manuscript. It is aimed to describe modeling and simulation processes for a cross-section of knee models. It is inspired by the paper on reporting finite element analysis studies. It is about the state-of-the-art on how people are modeling not how well they are modeling. The focus will likely be on 10-15 models.
    • Thor noted that the outcomes of the models may dictate workflow. Jason emphasized that the models should focus on natural knees (no implants) and at a minimum tibiofemoral articulation.
    • Thor indicated whether to set this manuscript as a key paper to document the process (leading into the project). It could also serve for the project announcement. The participants discussed the possibility to split these, i.e. work on a separate manuscript that announces and describes the project. The VPH 2018 abstract can be a segue to this announcement paper (also see below). Jason's paper can establish the need for specifications.
    • Carl was also in favor of highlighting lack of consistencies even using a smaller number of models (5 papers).
    • Jason has sent an e-mail to Farshid Guilak at Journal of Biomechanics. He seemed to be receptive to the idea.
  5. The group went over the action items from past meetings. They were mostly addressed in relation to the discussions above.
  6. There was a discussion on upcoming conference abstracts. Ahmet will submit an abstract to 2018 IMAG Futures Meeting. Jason will submit another to VPH 2018. All teams are expected to pay attention to e-mails related to these submissions to approve content.
  7. Many team members have also interacted with the broad community in regard to the project. Jason talked with Jeff Bischoff, Carl discussed the project with John Ioannidis, Jason and Pete met with Nico Verdonschot. Pete mentioned that Nico was interested and supportive. However, funding to support their efforts in regard to the project is the limiting factor. The group will try to touch base with Nico and the broader VPH community. Thor noted that Marco Viceconti has been visiting Auckland. He will chat with him and also promote the project in World Congress of Biomechanics.

2018-03-12 (last edited 2018-03-19 23:51:14 by aerdemir)