Trial reportPloS one2019
Objective classification and scoring of movement deficiencies in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Countermovement Jump Force-Time Mechanics Differentiate ACL Injury Status in Elite Alpine Ski Racers.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Bone Fracture Detection: A Review of Evidence, Limitations, and Clinical Integration.Cureus · 2025Review
- From Past to Future: Emergent Concepts of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Quantitative analysis of the dominant external factors influencing elite speed Skaters' performance using BP neural network.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Using an Affordable Motion Capture System to Evaluate the Prognostic Value of Drop Vertical Jump Parameters for Noncontact ACL Injury.The American journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Estimation of horizontal running power using foot-worn inertial measurement units.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Recovery, Rehabilitation, and Return to Full Duty in a Military Population After a Recent Injury: Differences Between Lower-Extremity and Spine Injuries.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Kinetic measurement system use in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a scoping review of methodological approaches.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Review
- Can Biomechanical Testing After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Identify Athletes at Risk for Subsequent ACL Injury to the Contralateral Uninjured Limb?The American journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- Motion Sensors-Based Machine Learning Approach for the Identification of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Gait Patterns in On-the-Field Activities in Rugby Players.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motion analysis systems are widely employed to identify movement deficiencies-e.g. patterns that potentially increase the risk of injury or inhibit performance. However, findings across studies are often conflicting in respect to what a movement deficiency is or the magnitude of association to a specific injury. This study tests the information content within movement data using a data driven framework that was taught to classify movement data into the classes: NORM, ACLOP and ACLNO OP, without the input of expert knowledge. The NORM class was presented by 62 subjects (124 NORM limbs), while 156 subjects with ACL reconstruction represented the ACLOP and ACLNO OP class (156 limbs each class). Movement data from jumping, hopping and change of direction exercises were examined, using a variety of machine learning techniques. A stratified shuffle split cross-validation was used to obtain a measure of expected accuracy for each step within the analysis. Classification accuracies (from best performing classifiers) ranged from 52 to 81%, using up to 5 features. The exercise with the highest classification accuracy was the double leg drop jump (DLDJ; 81%), the highest classification accuracy when considering only the NORM class was observed in the single leg hop (81%), while the DLDJ demonstrated the highest classification accuracy when considering only for the ACLOP and ACLNO OP class (84%). These classification accuracies demonstrate that biomechanical data contains valuable information and that it is possible to differentiate normal from rehabilitating movement patterns. Further, findings highlight that a few features contain most of the information, that it is important to seek to understand what a classification model has learned, that symmetry measures are important, that exercises capture different qualities and that not all subjects within a normative cohort utilise 'true' normative movement patterns (only 27 to 71%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.