Introducing Spine Agent 2.4: Autonomous multi-physics routing for surgical biomechanics.Explore live console
SPINETWIN MULTI-PHYSICS PLATFORM

Autonomous Biomechanics. Built for surgical R&D.

A single unified software platform transforming standard 2D X-rays into patient-specific 3D digital twins, 552-muscle musculoskeletal dynamics, and non-linear finite element simulations in minutes.

Stages 1–8 · Real-Time Inference

Automated 2D-to-3D Reconstruction

Machine learning landmark detection maps 17 vertebrae with 136 anatomical corner landmarks from standard X-rays to reconstruct millimeter-accurate 3D spinal geometries.

< 0.85 mmCT residual accuracy
Stage 10 · Musculoskeletal Engine

Musculoskeletal Dynamics

Solves 552 individual muscle actuators and kinematic force vectors during upright standing, flexion, and complex occupational lifting tasks to calculate physiological loading.

552 MusclesActuators resolved
Stage 11 · Non-Linear Solvers

Finite Element Stress

Automatically meshes hexahedral solid volumes and performs non-linear contact analysis across instrumented pedicle screws, rods, and adjacent intervertebral discs.

62 MPa14× yield margin safety
Full Stack · Multi-Agent Router

Autonomous Agentic Orchestration

Natural language prompt interpretation, zero-shot Python calculation authoring, and intelligent solver dispatch across cloud or on-premise compute clusters.

100%FDA 21 CFR Part 11 audit trail
The 11-Stage Surgical Engine

X-Ray In. A simulated plan out.

A cohesive staged surgical pipeline where every intermediate parameter is surgeon-editable. Co-piloted by the graphical planner and autonomous multi-physics Spine Agent.

Stages 1–5Powered by Machine Learning Landmark Network

Read the X-Ray: AI finds 17 vertebrae with 8 editable corners each

From raw X-ray to full spinopelvic sagittal parameters in under 2 seconds.

Vertebrae Detected17 (T1–L5)
Landmark Points136 (8 per body)
Sagittal ParametersPI, PT, SS, LL, TK, SVA, GT
Manual Comparison0.0° discrepancy
Clinical Nuance & Verification
  • Automated identification of 17 vertebrae from T1 down to L5, detecting 8 anatomical corners per vertebra.
  • Full spinopelvic parameter calculation: Pelvic Incidence (PI 38.4°), Pelvic Tilt (PT 14.4°), Sacral Slope (SS 24.0°), Lumbar Lordosis (LL 41.7°), and Thoracic Kyphosis (TK 36.5°).
  • Automated GAP (Global Alignment and Proportion) score calculation (5/13) and SVA global balance (-38 mm).
  • Clinician override enabled: every corner can be dragged and fine-tuned by hand with real-time recalculation.
Spine Landmark & Pelvic Parameter OutputSynced
Pelvic Incidence (PI)
38.4°anatomical base
Pelvic Tilt (PT)
14.4°compensated
Sacral Slope (SS)
24.0°normal
Lumbar Lordosis (LL)
41.7°target: 42.0°
Thoracic Kyphosis (TK)
36.5°matched check case
Global Tilt (GT)
8.3°aligned
GAP Score
5 / 13moderate risk
Surgeon Override: ActiveRequest Full Case Study
Scientific Rigor

Transparent Validation. Honest platform verification.

We hold computational surgical models to the highest standard of verification, cadaver validation, and transparent limitations.

ASME V&V 40 Standard

Finite Element Verification & Validation

Subjected to analytical benchmark equilibrium tests (beam bending, linear elasticity, contact mechanics) and 85 cadaver kinematic benchmarks.

Analytical Equilibrium:100% Passed
Cadaver Checks Passed:55 / 85 (65%)
Thoracic Flexibility Margin:±12% variance
Conforms to ASME V&V 40 medical device standards
r = 0.91 In Vivo

Musculoskeletal Simulation Engine

Powered by the Anderson Lab musculoskeletal model. Correlated against in vivo telemetry sensors (Wilke et al.) with 552 calibrated muscle lines.

Disc Pressure Fit:r = 0.91 (5 in vivo studies)
Framingham CT Cohorts:250 subjects
Spinal Segments:T1 to S1 articulate
Published peer-reviewed musculoskeletal kinematics
Transparent Status

Capabilities & Roadmap

Full transparency on clinical readiness: automated X-ray analysis and static simulation work today; 3D true patient geometry in beta.

End-to-end 11-stage pipeline (Production)
Autonomous parameter sweeping (Active)
Biplanar CT 3D registration (Q2 2026)
Dynamic gait musculoskeletal loops (Q3 2026)
Regular peer review updates committed
Multi-Physics Matrix

Compare Candidate Constructs. Finite element & musculoskeletal verification.

Side-by-side verification of fused motion rigidity, titanium rod fatigue safety margins, and adjacent segment stress across the three simulated plans.

Clinical MetricPlan A (L4–S1 Rods)Plan B (L3–S1 Rods)Plan C (L3–S1 + Cages) ★
Fused Segment Motion Drop-93.4%-97.8%-99.6% (Solid Fusion)
Rod Peak von Mises Stress66.2 MPa58.4 MPa34.1 MPa (-42% stress)
Yield Safety Margin13.6× yield15.4× yield26.4× yield (Optimal)
Adjacent Level L2–L3 Load648 N (+8% overload)582 N (-3%)574 N (-4.3% relief)
Neurospine ML PJK Risk18.2% (Moderate)11.5% (Low)9.8% (Lowest)
Status & RecommendationHigh Notch RiskStandard CareBiomechanically Preferred
Based on finite element von Mises analysis (pure moment 7.5 N·m + 500 N preload)
Download DICOM & Simulation Case Files
Clinical Calendar

Schedule a Clinical Review. Direct technical demo.

Book directly with the founding scientists or submit your institution's specific surgical simulation requirements.

Select a Team Member to Book Directly:

Farshid Ghezelbash, PhD

Biomechanics & Modeling Review

Discuss finite element mesh morphing, cadaver kinematics validation, and musculoskeletal model calibrations.

Amir Hossein Eskandari, PhD

Clinical Imaging & STP Screws

Evaluate machine learning landmark detection on your center's X-rays and cortical bone breach safety algorithms.

Dianze Liu

AI Architecture & Foundry Integration

Explore agent zero-shot parameter sweeps, custom Python solver automation, and Medtronic POC workflows.

General Clinical Inquiries

Custom pilot datasets & device integrations

HIPAA & SOC 2 Type II Ready24h Response SLA