Testing Limb Symmetry and Asymmetry After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: 4 Considerations to Increase Its Utility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury occurs frequently in sport and surgical reconstruction is often recommended to restore knee joint stability. To guide rehabilitation and determine return to sport readiness, practitioners have used a long-standing practice of calculating the limb symmetry index (LSI) in various functional, biomechanical, and strength tests to compare the injured limb with the noninjured contralateral limb. However, the evidence in support of the LSI calculation to quantify rehabilitation status and return to sport readiness is mixed. We synthesize scientific literature on the LSI calculation and discuss potential reasons for the mixed evidence and limitations. We present 4 considerations to improve the utility of the LSI calculation including (a): the importance of establishing the right benchmark of recovery such as the preinjury contralateral limb or a sport-specific noninjured control benchmark; (b) strategies to manage the high variation in movement asymmetry calculations and the importance of quantifying the intrasubject variability for the component parts of the LSI; (c) the evidence for assessing the movement strategy alongside performance when using the LSI; and (d) how a sport-specific envelope of function can be used to inform post-ACL injury testing that incorporates the LSI.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it