The application of musculoskeletal modeling to investigate gender bias in non-contact ACL injury rate during single-leg landings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central tenet of this study was to develop, validate and apply various individualised 3D musculoskeletal models of the human body for application to single-leg landings over increasing vertical heights and horizontal distances. While contributing to an understanding of whether gender differences explain the higher rate of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries among females, this study also correlated various musculoskeletal variables significantly impacted by gender, height and/or distance and their interactions with two ACL injury-risk predictor variables; peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and peak proximal tibia anterior shear force (PTASF). Kinematic, kinetic and electromyography data of three male and three female subjects were measured. Results revealed no significant gender differences in the musculoskeletal variables tested except peak VGRF (p = 0.039) and hip axial compressive force (p = 0.032). The quadriceps and the gastrocnemius muscle forces had significant correlations with peak PTASF (r = 0.85, p < 0.05 and r = - 0.88, p < 0.05, respectively). Furthermore, hamstring muscle force was significantly correlated with peak VGRF (r = - 0.90, p < 0.05). The ankle flexion angle was significantly correlated with peak PTASF (r = - 0.82, p < 0.05). Our findings indicate that compared to males, females did not exhibit significantly different muscle forces, or ankle, knee and hip flexion angles during single-leg landings that would explain the gender bias in non-contact ACL injury rate. Our results also suggest that higher quadriceps muscle force increases the risk, while higher hamstring and gastrocnemius muscle forces as well as ankle flexion angle reduce the risk of non-contact ACL injury.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".