Validity of the Uninjured Limb as a Control for Preoperative Assessment in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring muscle atrophy in patients undergoing anterolateral cruciate ligament reconstruction is pivotal for optimizing postoperative recovery. Conventionally, the uninjured contralateral limb serves as the control. However, its relevance in patients with prolonged physical activity hiatus due to knee instability remains uncertain. Our objectives were to compare limbs within a control group by assessing combined force measurements, cross-sectional areas (CSAs), and neuromuscular activation. In addition, we compared the contralateral limb of the surgery group preoperatively to the control group. This prospective controlled study (evidence level 2) included 40 healthy subjects (HG) and 30 patients scheduled for ACL surgery (SG). Both groups underwent identical assessments. The two HG limbs were compared to establish the standard difference for all assessed variables, whereas SG contralateral limb was compared with the mean of the control limbs. For HG, the comparisons between limbs showed no significant differences in muscle strength, CSA area, or electromyographic parameters. Similarly, comparisons between the SG contralateral limb and the mean of HG limbs revealed no significant differences in isometric and dynamic strength for the quadriceps and hamstrings (2.5 ± 0.5 and 2.6 ± 0.9 N.m/kg, and 1.7 ± 0.3 and 1.7 ± 0.4 N.m/kg, respectively). Neuromuscular activation and fatigue patterns were also comparable between groups. CSAs discrepancies were attributed to differences in body mass index between groups. These findings indicate that the contralateral limb in ACL_injured patients is functionally similar to that of healthy controls, supporting its use as a valid reference for monitoring postoperative recovery. Trial Registration: NCT03200678.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".