Skip to main content
. 2018 May 8;140(7):0745031–0745038. doi: 10.1115/1.4039677

Table 3.

Parameter estimates of the complex model with 12 estimated parameters (Nominal) and the reduced models with five sensitive parameters selected by FIM and LASSO methods (θ^FIM and θ^LASSO, respectively). Parameter 95% confidence interval width was estimated for the complex and reduced models. Goodness of fit was measured by VAF. All values are given as mean ±standard deviation across subjects.

Parameters Parameter estimates 95% confidence interval width
Θ Θ^ (Nominal) θ^FIM θ^LASSO CI(Θ) CI(θFIM) CI(θLASSO)
Kvis(Nmrad) 428 ± 125 279a,b ± 27 401 ± 163 546 ± 128 62c,d ± 19 236c ± 122
Kvcr(Nms2rad) 4860 ± 2205 8055a ± 1371 7274 ± 806 3623c ± 1418
Kccr(Nmrad) 87.9 ± 55.3 16.2a,b ± 11.9 36.4a ± 30.5 123.0 ± 49.8 18.2c,d ± 6.0 68.7c ± 36.9
τ(s) 0.263 ± 0.027 0.242b ± 0.024 0.226a ± 0.027 0.034 ± 0.010 0.020c,d ± 0.0710 0.033 ± 0.010
τ1A(s) 0.099 ± 0.063 0.069 ± 0.013 0.134 ± 0.036 0.030c ± 0.015
τCNS1(s) 0.675 ± 0.280 0.918a ± 0.077 0.544 ± 0.145 0.138c ± 0.069
τc(s) 1.733 ± 1.118 2.200 ± 1.256 3.086 ± 0.495 1.736c ± 0.534
τCNS2(s) 27.2 ± 16.2 48.7 ± 2.4
τMS1(s) 0.433 ± 0.381 0.932 ± 0.075
τMS2(s) 0.439 ± 0.325 0.877 ± 0.086
B(Nmsrad) 1.690 ± 1.213 4.659 ± 0.144
K(Nmrad) 2.170 ± 1.736 4.758 ± 0.114
VAF(%) 82.26 ± 7.67 82.65 ± 7.57 81.87 ± 7.56
a

The parameter estimate in the reduced model (with five estimated parameters selected by FIM and LASSO methods) was significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) from that of the complex model (with 12 estimated parameters – nominal values).

b

The parameter estimate in the FIM-selected parameters was significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) from that of the LASSO-selected parameters.

c

The parameter 95% confidence interval in the reduced model (from FIM or LASSO methods) was significantly narrower (p ≤ 0.05) than that of the complex model.

d

The parameter 95% confidence interval from the FIM method was significantly narrower (p ≤ 0.05) than that from the LASSO method.