Knee- and Overall Health-Related Quality of Life Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Australian and Canadian Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the knee- and overall health-related quality of life (QOL) 3 to 12 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear, and to assess the association of clinical and structural features with QOL after ACL tear. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of combined data from Australian (n = 76, 5.4 years postinjury) and Canadian (n = 50, 6.6 years postinjury) prospective cohort studies. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of patient-reported outcomes and index knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquired in 126 patients (median 5.5 [range: 4–12] years postinjury), all treated with ACL reconstruction. Outcomes included knee (ACL Quality of Life questionnaire [ACL-QOL]) and overall health-related QOL (EQ-5D-3L). Explanatory variables were self-reported knee pain (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-Pain subscale]) and function (KOOS-Sport subscale), and any knee cartilage lesion (MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score). Generalized linear models were adjusted for clustering between sites. Covariates were age, sex, time since injury, injury type, subsequent knee injuries, and body mass index. RESULTS: The median [range] ACL-QOL score was 82 [24–100] and EQ-5D-3L was 1.0 [−0.2 to 1.0]. For every 10-point higher KOOS-Sport score, the ACL-QOL score increased by 3.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 5.7), whereas there was no evidence of an association with the EQ-5D-3L (0.00 points, 95% CI: −0.02, 0.02). There were no significant association between KOOS-Pain and ACL-QOL (4.9 points, 95% CI: −0.1, 9.9) or EQ-5D-3L (0.05 points, 95% CI: −0.01, 0.11), respectively. Cartilage lesions were not associated with ACL-QOL (−1.2, 95% CI: −5.1, 2.7) or EQ-5D-3L (0.01, 95% CI: −0.01, 0.04). CONCLUSION: Self-reported function was more relevant for knee-related QOL than knee pain or cartilage lesions after ACL tear. Self-reported function, pain, and knee structural changes were not associated with overall health-related QOL. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(7):402–413. Epub: 8 June 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11838
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".