MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validity Of Smartphone App To Measure Activity In Patients Post-ACL Reconstruction Or With Knee OA

2025· article· en· W4414244583 on OpenAlexaff
N. Bryant, Alan Getgood, Kevin Willits, Robert Litchfield, J. Robert Giffin, Ryan M. Degen, Dianne Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivity monitorPhysical activityOsteoarthritisSmartphone appActivity trackerMetabolic equivalentAssociation (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Determine if myrecovery© app can be a valid proxy for activity in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) by comparing app activity measures with self-report journals. METHODS: We prospectively selected 200 active patients (patients with OA or patients at least 9 months following ACLR), of various sex, age, sport, and activity level. Participants tracked their daily activity for 4 weeks and used the myrecovery© app for the same period. Participants were encouraged to carry their phone unless not permitted by their activity. Activities from the diaries were converted to metabolic equivalent of task (1 kcal/kg/hr) per minute (MET/min). After the 4-week period, patients competed a Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARX) to denote their activity intensity over the past month. To investigate the association between activity measures, we constructed scatterplots and used Pearson’s r for linear data. Associations were interpreted as follows; poor: < 0.2, fair: 0.2 < 0.4, moderate: 0.4 < 0.6, strong: 0.6 < 0.8, very strong: 0.8 < 1.0. RESULTS: We consented 100 OA patients (39% female; age 58 ± 8 years) and 100 post-ACLR patients (43% female; age 25 ± 8 years). The average association between MET/min and step count for the 4-week period was r = 0.51, p = 0.002 for the OA group and r = 0.40, p = 0.03 for the ACL group. The association between MET/min and MARX for the 4-week period was r = 0.01, p = 0.95 for the OA group and r = 0.45, p = 0.01 for the ACL group. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between self-reported journals (MET/min) and app data (step count) were statistically significant for both groups, however the correlation was stronger for the OA patients compared to the ACLR patients, likely due to ACLR patients’ limited ability to carry their phones during sport. There was a strong association between MET/min and MARX scores (both self-reported) in the ACLR group, but the correlation between these measures for the OA group was weak. The type of activities being performed should be considered when determining the best method of measuring exposure. An activity score like the MARX may be a more valid measure for highly active patients participating in sport, such as those undergoing ACLR, whereas a app measuring step count such as myrecovery© may be preferred for older, less active patients with OA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→