Cross-education does not improve early and late-phase rehabilitation outcomes after ACL reconstruction: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Limited evidence suggests that cross-education affords clinical benefits in the initial 8 weeks after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but it is unknown if such cross-education effects are reproducible and still present in later phases of rehabilitation. We examined whether cross-education, as an adjuvant to standard therapy, would accelerate the rehabilitation up to 26 weeks after ACL reconstruction by attenuating quadriceps weakness. METHODS: ACL-reconstructed patients were randomized into experimental (n = 22) and control groups (n = 21). Both groups received standard care after ACL reconstruction. In addition, the experimental group strength trained the quadriceps of the non-operated leg during weeks 1-12 after surgery (i.e., cross-education). Self-reported knee function was assessed with the Hughston Clinic Knee score as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were maximal quadriceps and hamstring strength and single leg hop distance. All outcomes were measured 29 ± 23 days prior to surgery, as a reference, and at 5-week, 12-week, and 26-week post-surgery. RESULTS: Both groups scored 12% worse on self-reported knee function 5-week post-surgery (95% CI 7-17) and showed 15% improvement 26-week post-surgery (95% CI - 20 to - 10). No cross-education effect was found. Interestingly, males scored 8-10% worse than females at each time point post-surgery. None of 33 secondary outcomes showed a cross-education effect. At 26-week post-surgery, both legs improved maximal quadriceps (5-14%) and hamstring strength (7-18%), and the non-injured leg improved 2% in hop distance. The ACL recovery was not affected by limb dominance and age. CONCLUSION: 26 weeks of standard care improved self-reported knee function and maximal leg strength relative to pre-surgery and adding cross-education did not further accelerate ACL recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION: This randomized controlled clinical trial is registered at the Dutch trial register ( http://www.trialregister.nl ) under NTR4395.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".