MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320857342 · doi:10.1177/03635465231151686

Using an Affordable Motion Capture System to Evaluate the Prognostic Value of Drop Vertical Jump Parameters for Noncontact ACL Injury

2023· article· en· W4320857342 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Corban, Nicolaos Karatzas, Kevin Zhao, Athanasios Babouras, Stephane G. Bergeron, Thomas Fevens, Hassan Rivaz, Paul A. Martineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityConcordia UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal planeACL injuryAnterior cruciate ligamentSagittal planeMedicineReceiver operating characteristicOrthodonticsSurgeryAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee kinematic parameters during a drop vertical jump (DVJ) have been demonstrated to be associated with increased risk of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. However, standard motion analysis systems are not practical for routine screening. Affordable and practical motion sensor alternatives exist but require further validation in the context of ACL injury risk assessment. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To prospectively study DVJ parameters as predictors of noncontact ACL injury in collegiate athletes using an affordable motion capture system (Kinect; Microsoft). We hypothesized that athletes who sustained noncontact ACL injury would have larger initial and peak contact coronal abduction angles and smaller peak flexion angles at the knee during a DVJ. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: 102 participants were prospectively recruited from a collegiate varsity sports program. A total of 101 of the 102 athletes (99%) were followed for an entire season for noncontact ACL injury. Each athlete performed 3 DVJs, and the data were recorded using the motion capture system. Initial coronal, peak coronal, and peak sagittal angles of the knee were identified by our software. RESULTS: = .049, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.88, 0.92, and 0.90 for initial coronal, peak coronal, and peak sagittal angle, respectively. An initial coronal angle cutoff of 2.96° demonstrated 80% sensitivity and 72% specificity, a peak coronal angle cutoff of 6.16° demonstrated 80% sensitivity and 72% specificity, and a peak sagittal flexion cutoff of 93.82° demonstrated 80% sensitivity and 74% specificity on the study cohort. CONCLUSION: Increased peak coronal angle and decreased peak sagittal angle during a DVJ were significantly associated with increased risk for noncontact ACL injury. Based on ROC analysis, initial coronal angle showed good prognostic ability, whereas peak coronal angle and peak sagittal flexion provided excellent prognostic ability. Affordable motion capture systems show promise as cost-effective and practical options for large-scale ACL injury risk screening.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207