Forecasting neuromuscular recovery after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Athlete recovery profiles with generalized additive modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A retrospective analysis of longitudinally collected athlete monitoring data was conducted to generate a model of neuromuscular recovery after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and reconstruction (ACLR). Neuromuscular testing data including countermovement jump (CMJ) force‐time asymmetries and knee extensor strength (maximum voluntary contractionext) asymmetries (between‐limb asymmetry index—AI) were obtained from athletes with ACLR using semitendinosus (ST) autograft (n = 29; AI measurements: n = 494), bone patellar tendon bone autograft (n = 5; AI measurements: n = 88) and noninjured controls (n = 178; AI measurements: n = 3188). Explosive strength measured as the rate of torque development was also calculated. CMJ force‐time asymmetries were measured over discrete movement phases (eccentric deceleration phase, concentric phase). Separate additive mixed effects models (additive mixed effects model [AMM]) were fit for each AI with a main effect for the surgical technique and a smooth term for the time since surgery (days). The models explained between 43% and 91% of the deviance in neuromuscular recovery after ACLR. The mean time course was generated from the AMM. Comparative neuromuscular recovery profiles of an athlete with an accelerated progression and an athlete with a delayed progression after a serious multiligament injury were generated. Clinical Significance: This paper provides a new perspective on the utility of longitudinal athlete monitoring including routine testing to develop models of neuromuscular recovery after ACLR that can be used to characterize individual progression throughout rehabilitation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".