Using Machine Learning to Identify the Optimal Limb Symmetry Index Cut-Off Threshold in Paediatric Patients with ACL Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The risk for a subsequent ACL injury following a primary paediatric ACL reconstruction is extremely high, with 17-30% of paediatric patients sustaining a second ACL injury within two years. It is possible that this risk is associated with a lack of evidence for identifying return-to-activity (RTA) measures to guide postoperative decision-making. Limb symmetry indices (LSI) derived from functional and strength tasks are commonly used, however LSIs used by paediatric orthopaedic surgeons can range from 75-95%, with no objective evidence to support these values. Purpose: To create knowledge that could be used to inform RTA and to determine if a machine learning approach could objectively identify LSI thresholds from functional tasks that classify paediatric individuals as injured or healthy. Methods: Forty-two patients (30 females) who had suffered an ACL injury (ACLi) and 69 matched uninjured controls (36 females; CON) performed isometric knee extension and flexion, and single-leg hopping tasks. LSIs were calculated as injured/uninjured limb for ACLi and non-dominant/dominant limb for CON. LSIs with significant between-group (ACLi vs CON) differences (independent t-tests), were used in a machine learning algorithm. A classification tree (CT) was used to classify ACLi and CON participants using LSI percentages. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to determine optimal tree complexity. LSIs were then converted from percentage to categorical ‘pass/fail’ grades according to cut-off thresholds ranging from 70-100%. CTs were then fit to the converted categorical data at each cut-off threshold and the model accuracies were compared. Results: Anterior, lateral, triple, and timed 6m hop tasks, and knee extension strength LSIs were used in the machine learning algorithm. The CT using the raw LSI percentages correctly classified 85.9% of participants. When data were converted from percentage to categorical ‘pass/fail’ grades, a plateau in classification accuracy occurred between LSIs cut-off thresholds of ˜83-90%. The most accurate LSI cut-off threshold was 89%, which correctly classified 84.4% of participants. Conclusion: Based on our preliminary analysis, the 90% LSI cut-off is an appropriate threshold for separating the hopping and strength performance of ACLi and CON paediatric participants. It is nevertheless important to recognize that this threshold can identify those with ACL injury, and not those who are ready for return to activity. A 90% LSI is therefore only a minimum criterion to reach as part of an RTA evaluation, and not a threshold that identifies when an individual is ready to return.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".