Quadriceps Morphology 6‐ to 60‐Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare quadriceps morphology between legs and individuals with a first-time anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and uninjured controls. This was an exploratory cross-sectional study. We enrolled participants who were aged 19-35 years, and 6-60 months after a first-time ACL tear as well as uninjured controls. Participants attended two sessions separated by a minimum of 7 days. Bilateral knee extensor concentric and eccentric strength and rate of torque development (RTD) were assessed at the first session, and bilateral vastus lateralis muscle biopsies were obtained at the second. Muscle fiber-type specific cross-sectional area (fCSA), fiber-type proportions, and extracellular matrix area were calculated. Between-limb and between-group differences were estimated using mixed-effects regression. 41 of 47 (87%) participants completed the study (n = 21 ACL, n = 20 control). ACL group participants were a median (range) of 23 months from injury, and 78% had undergone an ACL reconstruction. Uninjured group participants had greater knee extensor concentric strength (-39.3 Nm; 95% CI: -54.2, -20.5), eccentric strength (-30.2 Nm; 95% CI: -53.4, -11.6), and RTD (-0.16 Nm/ms; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.04). No between-group or between-limb differences in muscle fiber-type specific fCSA, fiber-type proportions, or extracellular matrix area were observed. Despite deficits in knee extensor muscle performance, no difference in vastus lateralis fiber-type specific CSA, fiber-type proportion, or extracellular matrix area was detected between individuals 6-60 months after an ACL tear and uninjured controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".