Recurring Meeting of the Advisory Board

Date(s): December 22, 2016 - January 5, 2017

Due to scheduling conflicts, the group meeting with the Advisory Board members were scheduled on an individual basis with each member. Please refer to Meeting Minutes for more details.

Progress Report

Project Specific Aims

Project Infrastructure

Project Contact

Advisory Board

Progress Period

Development Team during Progress Period

See for full details on the project team.

Goals of Progress Period

Please also refer to previous meeting minutes of the Advisory Board at RecurringMeetings/2016-05-26. It should be noted that the timeline of activities has deviated from the original proposal, i.e., see the Roadmap and the proposed timeline of the proposal in GrantInformation/proposal.pdf.

Activities of Progress Period

Details of activities can be found in past meeting minutes of various teams at RecurringMeetings.

Plans for Next Progress Period (December 30, 2016 - May 2017)

It should be noted that the timeline of activities has deviated from the original proposal, i.e., see the Roadmap and the proposed timeline of the proposal in GrantInformation/proposal.pdf. The project slowed down following departure of personnel. It is anticipated that a no cost extension will be requested to continue project related activities for another year.

Meeting Minutes

Date, Time, Means:


  1. Ahmet Erdemir (Cleveland Clinic)
  2. Jack Andrish (Cleveland Clinic)
  3. Yasin Dhaher (Northwestern University)
  4. Trent Guess (University of Missouri)
  5. Rami Korhonen (University of Eastern Finland)


  1. Progress update, see progress report at:
  2. Recap of previous meeting minutes, see meeting minutes at:
  3. Action items for following meeting.
  4. Other.

Ongoing Action Items:

See notes for details.


  1. Due to scheduling conflicts, a series of meetings were conducted to inform the Advisory Board about Open Knee(s) activities and get feedback.
  2. Progress update.
    • Ahmet had separate calls with individual members of the Advisory Board. In each of these, he provided a summary of progress and plans for the upcoming year. He reported that he slowed down the project and he will likely ask for a no cost extension to continue for another year. He summarized the ongoing activities as tissue testing, segmentation, and model development. He emphasized the automated model assembly approach, which will facilitate modeling once segmented geometries become available. He provided an update on past, recent, and future grant applications for the expansion of Open Knee(s). Other highlights from the individual meetings are noted below.
    • Trent and Ahmet mostly discussed tissue testing, segmentation, and model development. Trent mentioned his interest in meniscus data for some his potential projects. He may contact Ahmet in this regard in a few months. Ahmet noted that he would be happy to provide more detailed information when needed.
    • Jack asked about publications. Ahmet noted that while Open Knee(s) publications were delayed, there were other groups who utilized the first generation model in their studies and published. He also mentioned his interest to increase usability of Open Knee(s) models by providing them in different formats.
    • Yasin encouraged Ahmet to document and potentially organize a conference session on lessons learned during development of free and open source virtual knee specimens. Ahmet indicated at he already had presented work in relevance to science of modeling and simulation. He would be interested in aforementioned activities in future but he would need to prioritize. He recommended to chat with Yasin in more detail in the upcoming Multiscale Modeling Consortium meeting in March, 2017.
    • Yasin was also interested in testing of tissue for other scientific reasons, e.g. to characterize cartilage plasticity. Ahmet noted that the Open Knee(s) project has kept all the tissues from the specimens. Some of these specimens are not necessarily part of Open Knee(s) tissue testing protocol. Others will be kept after tissue testing for additional characterization, when and if requested. Yasin asked if Ahmet would be interested in other investigators visiting Cleveland Clinic to conduct such tests. Ahmet indicated that this would be a possibility. Yasin recommended Ahmet to devise a formal protocol to accomplish this.
    • Ahmet informed Yasin about the strategy implemented for comparison of geometries segmented by different people on the same knee and tissue. This project emerged from previous discussions and a dashboard on the status of this activity can be found in the Roadmap.
    • Rami and Ahmet mostly discussed tissue testing, particularly pre-conditioning strategies. Ahmet indicated that current testing protocols of Open Knee(s) utilizes 1000 cycles at 2 Hz for pre-conditioning to establish a repeatable tissue response.
    • Rami and Ahmet also discussed Petri's work on cell scale modeling and how to move it forward. Petri visited the Open Knee(s) team just recently and spent three weeks on modeling and simulation.
  3. Recap of previous meeting minutes.
    • The discussions mainly focused on progress and future plans (see item above).
  4. Action items for following meeting.
    • Most action items were related to the ongoing agenda items, see above.
  5. Other.
    • Refer to notes above for the agenda item on progress update.

RecurringMeetings/2016-12-22 (last edited 2017-01-09 14:15:52 by aerdemir)