Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35459787›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Leveraging explainable machine learning to identify gait biomechanical parameters associated with anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Christos Kokkotis, Serafeim Moustakidis, Themistoklis Tsatalas, Charis Ntakolia, Georgios Chalatsis, Stylianos Konstadakos, Michael E Hantes, Giannis Giakas, Dimitrios Tsaopoulos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Machine learning model identifies tibial anatomical variables as potential risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christos KokkotisInstitute for Bio-Economy & Agri-Technology, Center for Research and Technology Hellas, 38333, Vólos, Greece. chkokkotis@gmail.com.
Serafeim MoustakidisAIDEAS OÜ, 10117, Tallinn, Estonia.
Themistoklis TsatalasTEFAA, Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, University of Thessaly, 42100, Trikala, Greece.
Charis NtakoliaHellenic National Center of COVID-19 Impact on Youth, University Mental Health Research Institute, 11527, Athens, Greece.
Georgios ChalatsisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Trauma, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University General Hospital of Larissa, 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Stylianos KonstadakosAnimus, 41500, Larissa, Greece.
Michael E HantesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Trauma, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University General Hospital of Larissa, 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Giannis GiakasTEFAA, Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, University of Thessaly, 42100, Trikala, Greece.
Dimitrios TsaopoulosInstitute for Bio-Economy & Agri-Technology, Center for Research and Technology Hellas, 38333, Vólos, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficient and reconstructed knees display altered biomechanics during gait. Identifying significant gait changes is important for understanding normal and ACL function and is typically performed by statistical approaches. This paper focuses on the development of an explainable machine learning (ML) empowered methodology to: (i) identify important gait kinematic, kinetic parameters and quantify their contribution in the diagnosis of ACL injury and (ii) investigate the differences in sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics of the gait cycle between ACL deficient, ACL reconstructed and healthy individuals. For this aim, an extensive experimental setup was designed in which three-dimensional ground reaction forces and sagittal plane kinematic as well as kinetic parameters were collected from 151 subjects. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology was evaluated using a comparative analysis with eight well-known classifiers. Support Vector Machines were proved to be the best performing model (accuracy of 94.95%) on a group of 21 selected biomechanical parameters. Neural Networks accomplished the second best performance (92.89%). A state-of-the-art explainability analysis based on SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and conventional statistical analysis were then employed to quantify the contribution of the input biomechanical parameters in the diagnosis of ACL injury. Features, that would have been neglected by the traditional statistical analysis, were identified as contributing parameters having significant impact on the ML model's output for ACL injury during gait.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate LigamentBiomechanical PhenomenaGaitHumansKnee JointMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID35459787
PMCPMC9026057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.