Monitoring External Workload With Wearable Technology After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Current sports medicine and rehabilitation trends indicate an increasing use of wearable technology. The ability of these devices to collect, transmit, and process physiological, biomechanical, bioenergy, and environmental data may aid in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) workload monitoring and return-to-sport decision-making. In addition, their ease of use allows assessments to occur outside the clinical or laboratory settings and across a broader timeline.Purpose:To (1) determine how wearable technology can assess external workload deficits between limbs (involved and uninvolved) and between groups (healthy controls vs patients with ACLR) during physical activity (PA) or sport and (2) describe the types of sensors, sensor specifications, assessment protocols, outcomes of interest, and participant characteristics from the included studies.Study Design:Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:In February 2023, a systematic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Compendex, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases. Eligible studies included assessments of PA or sports workloads via wearable technology after ACLR.Results:Twenty articles met eligibility criteria and were included. The primary activity assessed was activities of daily living, although rehabilitation, training, and competition were also represented. Accelerometers, global positioning system units, pedometers, and pressure sensor insoles were worn to collect external workload data, which was quantified as kinetic, kinematic, and temporospatial data. Daily steps (count) and moderate to vigorous PA (min/day or week) were the most common units of measurement. A limited number of studies included outcomes related to between-limb asymmetries.Conclusion:The findings of this scoping review highlight the versatility of wearable technologies to collect patients’ kinetic, kinematic, and temporospatial data and assess external workload outcomes after ACLR. In addition, some wearable technologies identified deficits in workload compared with healthy controls and between reconstructed and unaffected limbs.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".