## 5 Conclusions  
In conclusion, the present study represents the first step in validating MSK models for reproducing the MVIC test of knee extensors in silico. The minimum amount of information required to achieve a one-to-one match between model predictions and experimental data was identified in both the muscle volumes and the activation level scaled based on the EMG signal. To ensure comprehensive validation, two additional steps are necessary: expanding the sample size, including both sexes and employing an isokinetic dynamometer, the gold standard for MVIC testing. Therefore, further analyses and a larger dataset are needed to confirm these preliminary results. Conceptualization, F.B., M.V. and G.D.; data curation, F.B. and G.D.; formal analysis, F.B. ; investigation, F.B. and G.D.; methodology, F.B., M.V. and G.D.; project administration, M.V. and G.D.; supervision, M.V. ; writing--original draft, F.B. ; writing--review and editing, M.V. and G.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This study was funded by the H2020 project \"In Silico World: Lowering barriers to ubiquitous adoption of In Silico Trials\" (topic SC1-DTH-06-2020, grant ID 101016503). The project \"ForceLoss: differential diagnosis of force loss in fragile elders\" funded by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca finalizzata RF-2019-12369960) supported the clinical study. **Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the local Ethical Committee approval (CE AVEC: 216/2020/Sper/IOR, Clinical Trials ID: NCT05091502). **Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. **Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are openly available in AMS Acta at 10.6092/unibo/amsacta/7710 ([[https://amsacta.unibo.it/id/eprint/7710](https://amsacta.unibo.it/id/eprint/7710)]([https://amsacta.unibo.it/id/eprint/7710](https://amsacta.unibo.it/id/eprint/7710)), accessed on 20 May 2024). **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. * [PERSON] et al. (2008) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Calculated Moment-Arm and Muscle-Tendon Lengths during Gait Differ Substantially Using MR Based versus Rescaled Generic Lower-Limb Musculoskeletaletal Models. _Gait Posture_**2008**, _28_, 640-648. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] et al. (2020) [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Best Methods and Data to Reconstruct Paediatric Lower Limb Bones for Musculoskeletal Modelling. _Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol._**2020**, _19_, 1225-1238. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] et al. (2009) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Are Current Measurements of Lower Extremity Muscle Architecture Accurate? _Clin. Orthor. Relat. Res._**2009**, _467_, 1074-1082. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] et al. (2023) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; et al. Deciphering the \"Art\" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Assessing Model Calibration Workflows and Outcomes. _J. Biomech. Eng._**2023**, _145_, 121008. [CrossRef] [PubMedMed]
* [PERSON] et al. (2021) [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Modeling Musculoskeletal Dynamics during Gait: Evaluating the Best Personalization Strategy through Model Anatomical Consistency. _Appl. Sci._**2021**, _11_, 8348. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] et al. (2014) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Relationships of 35 Lower Limb Muscles to Height and Body Mass Quantified Using MRI. _J. Biomech._**2014**, _47_, 631-638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
* [PERSON] et al. (2016) [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON] [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Neuro-Musculoskeletaletal Simulation of Instrumented Contractive and Spasticity Assessment in Children with Cerebral Palsy. _J.