MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407208326 · doi:10.1177/23259671241312681

Biomechanical Risk Factors for Increased Anterior Cruciate Ligament Loading and Injury: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4407208326 on OpenAlexaff
Malachy Belkhelladi, Tanya Cierson, Paul A. Martineau

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentACL injuryValgusBiomechanicsPhysical therapyPopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSystematic reviewRehabilitationAthletesCohort studyOrthodonticsMEDLINESurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Understanding the biomechanical risk factors for noncontact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury can inform machine learning models, aid in prevention strategies, and guide rehabilitation protocols, reducing the incidence and burden of these injuries in both athletes and the general population. Purpose: To determine the biomechanical risk factors associated with noncontact ACL injury and increased knee loading. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Randomized, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies identifying noncontact biomechanical risk factors for ACL injuries published before May 2023 were included in this review. Excluded were studies focused on contact ACL injuries, those focused on biomechanical risk factors postinjury, and those not published in the English language. The authors highlighted biomechanical risk factors not extensively covered in previous reviews, including the toe-in position, increased contralateral pelvic hike, increased hip internal rotation angle, and specific ankle angles. A quantitative overview of the included studies was conducted, highlighting the frequency of each biomechanical factor reported as potentially related to ACL injury or loading risk. Results: A total of 28 studies (2819 athletes) were selected for analysis. The majority of these studies (22/28) were cross-sectional, primarily assessing ACL load indirectly via knee valgus moment or ground-reaction forces, while case-control and cohort studies focused on ACL injury incidence. Overall, 83% (5/6) of the studies assessing upper body biomechanics found that trunk flexion/extension and perturbations affect ACL loading risk. Of studies assessing hip biomechanics, 83% (10/12) showed increased ACL loading or injury risk with increased hip abduction/internal rotation angles. For the foot and ankle, increased toe-in/toe-out landing in 67% of studies (2/3) demonstrated higher stress on the ACL. Knee biomechanics were associated with increased ACL loading in 100% of the respective studies (5/5), with decreased knee flexion angles leading to increased loading. Conclusion: The data demonstrated that factors associated with increased medial knee alignment, sagittal alignment of the trunk, and decreased lateral trunk flexion reduced both knee loading and ACL injury risk. Targeted prevention and detection strategies addressing high-risk biomechanics may reduce injury incidence, underscoring the need for further research to optimize intervention programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207