Does the one-leg rise test reflect quadriceps strength in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore if one-leg rise test performance is associated with quadriceps strength following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Cross-sectional. 100 individuals (50 females, 50 males) aged 18–40 years, 9–36 months post-ACLR with ongoing knee symptoms (KOOS4 <80/100). Number of one-leg rise repetitions (using an adjustable-height plinth) and isometric quadriceps strength using isokinetic dynamometry (60° flexion, normalised to body mass). Multivariable fractional polynomial regression models adjusted for sex explored relationships between one-leg rise performance (repetitions) and quadriceps strength (Nm/kg) for each limb. A non-linear, increasing association between one-leg rise performance and quadriceps strength was observed, with the rate of increase attenuating at higher values of one-leg rise performance. Similar relationships were observed in the ACLR (β = 0.15, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.20; adjusted r2 = 0.51) and contralateral limb (β = 0.14, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.19; r2 = 0.42). The one-leg rise test can be an indicator of quadriceps strength in individuals after ACLR, enabling clinicians to easily monitor quadriceps strength recovery without specialised equipment. With the relationship between one-leg rise performance and quadriceps strength attenuating with a larger number of one-leg rises achieved, other factors (e.g., motivation, endurance) likely contribute to one-leg rise performance at higher values.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".