Cited by 32Orthopaedic implants and arthroplastyArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

In silico clinical trials in the orthopedic device industry: from fantasy to reality?

Open access
Favre, Philippe, Maquer, Ghislain, Henderson, Adam, Hertig, Daniel, Ciric, Daniel, Bischoff, Jeffrey E.·2021·Annals of Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

The orthopedic device industry relies heavily on clinical evaluation to confirm the safety, performance, and clinical benefits of its implants. Limited sample size often prevents these studies from capturing the full spectrum of patient variability and real-life implant use. The device industry is accustomed to simulating benchtop tests with numerical methods and recent developments now enable virtual "in silico clinical trials" (ISCT). In this article, we describe how the advancement of computer modeling has naturally led to ISCT; outline the potential benefits of ISCT to patients, healthcare systems, manufacturers, and regulators; and identify how hurdles associated with ISCT may be overcome. In particular, we highlight a process for defining the relevant patient risks to address with ISCT, the utility of a versatile software pipeline, the necessity to ensure model credibility, and the goal of limiting regulatory uncertainty. By complementing-not replacing-traditional clinical trials with computational evidence, ISCT provides a viable technical and regulatory strategy for characterizing the full spectrum of patients, clinical conditions, and configurations that are embodied in contemporary orthopedic implant systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10439-021-02787-y

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This paper complements and builds upon related work, including a theoretical framing for credibility of in silico studies, a discussion of limitations of ASME V&V40 2018 for ISCTs, a framework for executing an ISCT using VVUQ concepts, and a proposed alteration to ASME V&V40 2018 for ISCTs.

    “This paper complements and builds upon related work, including a theoretical framing for credibility of in silico studies [10], a discussion of limitations of ASME V&V40 2018 for ISCTs [11], a framework for executing an ISCT using VVUQ concepts [12], and a proposed alteration to ASME V&V40 2018 for ISCTs, including modification of the risk assessment stage which is outside the scope of the present”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Favre, P., Maquer, G., Henderson, A., Hertig, D., Ciric, D., & Bischoff, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Zimmer Biomet (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Zimmer Biomet (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Favre, Philippe
Venue
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
Published
2021-05-10
Volume
49
Issue
12
Pages
3213-3226
ISSN
  • 0090-6964 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-9686
OpenAlex
W3162989881
Cited by
32
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Zimmer Biomet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
in silico clinical trials, orthopedic implants, computer modeling, patient heterogeneity, model credibility, regulatory uncertainty, computational evidence, implant safety, software pipeline
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Europe, Humans, Industry, Orthopedic Equipment, Software, Equipment Failure Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review