ArticleScientific reports2026
Utilization of machine learning to identify lower extremity biomechanical predictors of rupture in a validated cadaveric model of ACL injury.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a critical concern in sports medicine. This study presents a detailed evaluation of machine learning (ML) techniques for the prediction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries - a critical concern in sports medicine that often entails prolonged recovery periods and significant patient burden. Leveraging the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical applications, our work assesses eight distinct ML models (i.e., Support Vector Machines, Decision Tree Classifiers, Random Forest, Stochastic Gradient Descent, Logistic Regression, Gradient Boosting, Ridge Regression, and Linear Discriminant Analysis). Models were trained and tested on four datasets: 53-feature (Binary) ACL Rupture Biomechanical and Demographic (ARBD/BARBD) and 13-feature (Binary) ACL Rupture Wearable (ARW/BARW) that are readily accessible in real-life scenarios. Models were evaluated under a three-class schema ’pre-rupture,’ ’trial prior to rupture,’ ’rupture’ and then reclassified into a binary ’pre-rupture’ vs. ’elevated risk.’ Our analyses reveal that early-phase force metrics, particularly those recorded at 33 milliseconds (e.g., 33ms_Fx and 33ms_Fz) with ARBD and BARBD datasets and initial-contact forces (e.g., IC_Fx, IC_Fz) over demographic variables in ARW and BARW datasets, consistently emerge as significant predictors of injury across multiple and binary models. Notably, across the ARBD and ARW datasets, the ML models achieved accuracies ranging from approximately 79% to 87%, which improved markedly to a range of 92% to 95% when reclassified into a binary classification. These findings underscore the clinical relevance of early dynamic measurements and demonstrate the robustness and generalizability of our approach.
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.