• RecurringMeetings
• 2016-05-03

Recurring Meeting of Cleveland Clinic Core Team

Date: May 3, 2016

Time: 2:00 PM EST

Means: In person meeting

Attendees:

1. Ahmet Erdemir
2. Tammy Owings
3. Benjamin Landis
4. Robb Colbrunn

Agenda:

1. Discuss immediate action items from past meetings.

   • http://wiki.simtk.org/multis/RecurringMeetings/2016-04-26

2. Readiness for in vivo testing.
3. Decide immediate action items for next meeting.
4. Other.

Immediate Action Items:

• Ahmet
  • Review contents of subject configuration XML file for in vivo testing.
• Tammy
  • Schedule full mock up sessions for finalization of in vivo testing procedures.
• Ben
  • Continue comparative analysis of SOFA and FEBio performance using simple indentation model.
  • Complete documentation of simple indentation model using FEBio.
  • Start documentation of basic indentation model using SOFA.
• Tara
  • Update data collection software based on feedback from the last mock up session on in vivo testing procedures.

Notes:

1. Discuss immediate action items from past meetings.
   • Ahmet emphasized that the review of subject configuration XML file and the data collection software for in vivo testing will be conducted offline.
   • Tammy, Ahmet and Tara ran another mock up session.
     • Ahmet provided the notes from the session on the in vivo testing specifications wiki page.
     • The majority of the mock-up session focused on evaluation of data collection software. Tara will be working on the necessary software updates. Ahmet mentioned that she has already implemented an optimization algorithm for calculation of mass, center of mass, and load transducer offsets. This will significantly reduce the calibration efforts.
     • Tammy noted that the Subject ID, which was sent to the ultrasound system in an encoded fashion, does not include the repetition, e.g. -1 or -2. It is assumed that this will be taken care of via date and time stamps or subject ID written on ultrasound screen.
     • Ahmet ordered a foot switch to use with the ultrasound machine.
   • Ben has been working with FEBio and SOFA to resolve disagreements in reaction forces predicted for the simple indentation model. He had a simple leg model working in SOFA where the ultrasound probe indents the tissue.
   • Ben identified an issue with outputting loads in FEBio for node sets. He will follow up with FEBio developers by email or through the forum to resolve it.
   • Robb and Tara had implemented features to the data collection software (for in vivo testing) to have a working version. The group discussed the association of the state and sensor files, and the tdms data files when using LInUS. Data storage should accommodate which trial run uses what parameters or state/sensor files. The most important parameters will be related to weigh compensation, e.g. mass, center of mass, and load transducer offsets. Coordinate system transformations will also be good to have.
2. Readiness for in vivo testing.
   • The data collection software is working. Updates are expected pending review and mock up tests.
   • Tammy is comfortable with general setup and data collection procedures. A new foot switch will be received in the upcoming weeks.
   • The group iterated experimentation schedule. A full mock up and minor updates on software and data collection procedures should be done by the end of May. If successful, real subject testing may start in June; testing of a total of 100 subjects will take at least 10 weeks.
3. Decide immediate action items for next meeting.
   • See Immediate Action Items above.
4. Other.
   • Ahmet mentioned that automated analysis of ultrasound images to extract skin, fat, and muscle thickness may be challenging. It may require scientific and engineering work at a level of doctoral dissertation, e.g. template based segmentation, etc.
   • Ahmet asked Robb about the extensibility of the load transducer data collection software for Optotrak integration, i.e., a new sensor and state that relates it to the probe position and orientation. This would be more likely to be used for in vitro testing. Robb mentioned that this can be a straightforward upgrade.
   • Ahmet asked Robb if there is adequate freezer space to store in vitro testing specimens. He anticipates to have at least 10 legs and 10 arms. Robb responded that the walk-in freezer should be able to accommodate these.