MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280550913 · doi:10.1177/2325967121s00461

Quantifying Knee Strength Deficits and Muscular Contribution to Torque Generation in ACL-Injured Adolescents Using A Simple Musculoskeletal Model

2022· article· en· W4280550913 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa E. Flaxman, Nicholas J. Romanchuk, Mohammad S. Shourijeh, Sasha Carsen, Michael Del Bel, Daniel L. Benoit

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseAnterior cruciate ligamentMedicineElectromyographyACL injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyEccentricHamstringAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Surface electromyography (sEMG) is commonly used to elucidate the effect of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury on neuromuscular function. To facilitate comparisons, sEMG is normalized to a known value, such as peak activation during a maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). However, voluntary muscle inhibition after an injury compromises one’s ability to achieve a true MVIC value. Musculoskeletal modeling can be used to quantify this strength deficit by comparing a theoretical MVIC torque to the actual MVIC torque. Purpose: This study sought to evaluate voluntary knee extensor and flexor strength deficits and individual muscle contribution to peak torque generation in ACL injured (ACLi) and uninjured (CON) adolescent populations using a simplified subject-specific modeling framework. Methods: Thirty-nine ACLi (25 females) and 39 CON (25 females) adolescents (12-17years) completed knee extension and flexion MVICs on an isokinetic dynamometer. Peak experimental torque (TE) was identified. A subject-specific modeling framework used normalized sEMG of the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius muscles to determine theoretically ideal torque (TI) for each exercise, assuming agonist muscles were fully activated. Strength deficit ratios (TE/TI) and individual muscle contribution to TE were computed. Group mean differences were compared using independent t-tests. Results: ACLi demonstrated significantly lower extension (2.53±0.94 vs 3.07±0.57Nm/kg, p<0.001) and flexion (1.14±0.50 vs 1.37±0.31Nm/kg, p<0.001) peak TE compared to CON (FIG 1.A). Significant between group differences in sEMG of antagonist muscles were observed. Both groups demonstrated similar TI values (FIG 1.B-upper). Significantly lower trends in strength ratios (TE/TI) were maintained between groups (FIG 1.B-lower). However, percent between group differences were minimized from 17.8% to 6.3% for knee extension, and 16.7% to 10.0% for knee flexion, when TE is expressed relative to TI. Significantly lower medical gastrocnemius contribution to flexion TE was also observed in the ACLi (24.7±0.08%) compared to CON (30.9±10.1%, p=0.037). Conclusion: Significant between group differences in peak extensor or flexor torques were observed. Our model confirmed a strength deficit in ACLi compared to CON, however, between group differences were less prominent when described relative to TI. This may be attributed to between group differences in antagonist contributions (i.e. co-contraction) during MVIC exercise. Simplified modeling frameworks that can incorporate muscle activations as well as torque generation may be more appropriate for evaluating functional outcomes of ACLi populations in a clinical setting. [Figure: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207