ArticleBMJ open2026
Wearable sensor technology and machine learning for anterior cruciate ligament injury diagnosis: an exploratory feasibility study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of using wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs; small body-worn sensors that capture linear acceleration and angular velocity) combined with machine learning (ML) to identify anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries during clinical knee joint laxity assessments.
designProspective exploratory feasibility study using a case-control design. A feed-forward neural network classifier was trained on time-normalised IMU signals recorded during Lachman and Anterior Drawer tests to distinguish ACL-injured from healthy knees. Model performance was assessed using 10-fold participant-level cross-validation and reported at repetition-wise and subject-wise levels.
settingBiomechanics laboratory within a secondary care setting in London, UK. Recruitment occurred through an acute soft-tissue injury management clinic.
participants50 participants were recruited: 26 healthy controls and 24 individuals with an MRI-confirmed ACL injury (partial or complete) sustained within the current injury episode. Healthy controls contributed 52 uninjured legs and ACL-injured participants contributed 25 injured and 23 contralateral uninjured legs (including 1 bilateral injury). Inclusion criteria for the injured group were acute knee injury, MRI-confirmed ACL tear and ability to bear weight. Controls were ≥18 years with no history of knee ligament injury. Exclusion criteria included age <18 or >45, chronic joint conditions, non-weightbearing status, pregnancy, allergy to adhesives or inability to provide informed consent. All participants completed the study.
interventionsNot applicable. Participants underwent standardised clinical Lachman and Anterior Drawer tests performed by a specialist physiotherapist while IMUs were mounted on the femur and tibia using a custom three-dimensional-printed rig. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of an ML model classifying ACL injury status (injured vs healthy) based on IMU-derived linear acceleration and angular velocity (three axes per sensor). Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and F1 score. Planned model assessments (repetition-wise and subject-wise) were completed as intended. Hyperparameter adjustments were made post hoc to address overfitting when expanding to the full dataset.
resultsAcross the full dataset (n=50), the comparative leg model (method 2) achieved a subject-wise diagnostic accuracy of 81%, sensitivity 83%, specificity 79%, PPV 80% and NPV 83% using 10-fold participant-level cross-validation. Repetition-wise accuracy was 71%. Discriminative performance was moderate (AUROC 0.773), with an F1 score of 0.889. The individual leg model (method 1) showed lower performance (subject-wise accuracy 70%; sensitivity 43%; specificity 81%).
conclusionsThis study supports the feasibility of wearable sensors to be used in the clinical assessment of ACL injury to assist in capturing movement features associated with joint laxity. More work should be done to increase generalisability and validate findings further.
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.