Lower extremity joint angle, moment, and coordination throughout a double limb drop vertical jump in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) utilise different landing biomechanics between limbs, but previous analyses have not considered the continuous or simultaneous joint motion that occurs during landing and propulsion. The purpose of this study was to compare sagittal plane ankle/knee and knee/hip coordination patterns as well as ankle, knee, and hip angles and moments and vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) between the ACLR and uninjured limbs during landing and propulsion. Fifteen females and thirteen males performed a drop vertical jump from a 30 cm box placed half their height from force platforms. Coordination was compared using a modified vector coding technique and binning analysis. Kinematics and kinetics were time normalised for waveform analyses. Coordination was not different between limbs. The ACLR limb had smaller dorsiflexion angles from 11 to 16% of landing and 24 to 75% of landing and propulsion, knee flexion moments from 5 to 15% of landing, 20 to 31% of landing, and 35 to 91% of landing and propulsion, and vGRF from 92 to 94% of propulsion compared with the uninjured limb. The ACLR limb exhibited smaller dorsiflexion angles to potentially reduce the knee joint moment arm and mitigate the eccentric and concentric demands on the ACLR knee during landing and propulsion, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".