ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT-INJURED FEMALE ADOLESCENTS USE MORE THEIR NON-INJURED LIMB TO PERFORM A COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP IN RELATION TO THE INJURED LIMB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate if the countermovement jump height differs between ACL injured and uninjured female adolescents and to explore kinematic differences between limbs. Additionally, the association between isometric knee extension strength and jump height was investigated. Thirty-one ACL injured female adolescents (ACLi, 15.3 ± 1.4yrs, 163.9 ± 6.6cm, 63.0 ± 9.3kg) and thirty-eight uninjured (CON, 13.2±1.7yrs, 161.7 ± 8.1cm, 50.6 ± 11.1kg) participated in this study. All participants performed a countermovement jump task, with 3D kinematics collected using a motion analysis system (Vicon, Nexus, Oxford, UK) at 200Hz, and a maximum isometric knee extension task on an isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex Medical Systems, New York, USA) for three trials. The peak torque was extracted from the isometric trials. Independent samples t-test compared the maximum jump height normalised by the dominant leg length between groups, paired samples t-test compared the maximum hip and knee extension and ankle plantar flexion velocities before take-off between limbs in both groups, and a Pearson's correlation test investigated the association between the isometric knee extension strength and jump height. The ACLi jumped 13% lower compared to the CON (p=0.022). In the ACLi, the maximum hip and knee extension and ankle plantar flexion velocities were greater in the non-injured limb, compared to the injured limb; however, no differences between limbs were found in the CON. The isometric knee extension strength of both limbs was positively correlated with jump height (limb 1: r=0.329; p=0.006, and limb 2: r=0.386; p=0.001; whereas limb 1 corresponds to the ACLi injured limb and CON non-dominant limb, and limb 2 to the ACLi non-injured limb and CON dominant limb). ACL injured female adolescents present lower jump height than controls and greater contribution of their non-injured limb, compared to their injured limb, during a countermovement jump task. Also, current results indicate that jump height is positively related to isometric knee extension strength measure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".