MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128491047 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0547.25

Examination of the Construct Validity of Nextiles Sleeve as a Measure of Peak Elbow Varus Torque

2025· article· W7128491047 on OpenAlexaff
Jakob Wolf, Kristen Nicholson, Garrett Fernandez, Franco M. Impellizzeri, Patrick Ward, Ian Shrier, Chelsea Martin, Nathan H. O’Connell, Charles Thigpen, Ellen Shanley, Garrett Bullock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsElbowIntraclass correlationTorqueThrowingContext (archaeology)Construct validityRange of motion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context New wearable circuited fabric biomechanic technology that can be used in a more ecological context to measure elbow-varus torque and throw count is now available but needs to be validated compared with markerless biomechanics. Objective To examine the construct validity of the Nextiles Arm Sleeve by assessing its agreement and convergence with markerless 3-dimensional (3D) biomechanics used as a reference for (1) peak elbow-varus torque and (2) pitches thrown with separate analyses for fastballs, breaking balls, and changeups. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Laboratory. Patients or Other Participants A total of 29 collegiate pitchers (age = 19.5 ± 1.3 years, height = 1.88 ± 0.06 m, mass = 91.7 ± 9.5 kg, body mass index = 26.2 ± 1.9 kg/m 2 ) participated. Intervention(s) Pitchers were assessed simultaneously via the Nextiles sleeve and markerless 3D motion capture (KinaTrax) as they threw fastballs, breaking balls, and changeups to a catcher at regulation distance. Main Outcome Measure(s) Nested Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) for construct validity, mixed-effects linear regressions for convergence validity, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for test-retest reliability were calculated between the Nextiles sleeve and 3D biomechanics for elbow-varus torque. We determined that an a priori acceptable threshold for LoA and convergence was a 95% CI width of 0.15 and 95% CI lower limit of 0.50. Results Pitchers threw 200 pitches (fastball: 72%, n = 143; breaking ball: 14%, n = 27; changeup: 15%, n = 30), with 182 pitches recorded by the Nextiles sleeve and 18 pitches (n = 3 pitchers) not recorded due to technical errors. Agreement and validity for pitch measures (mean difference [lower, upper] LoA = 6.7 N·m [–26.2, 39.6 N·m]; β = 0.31 [0.12, 0.52]; Nextiles sleeve ICC [95% CI] = 0.96 [0.93, 0.98]; KinaTrax ICC [95% CI] = 0.97 [0.94, 0.98]) were higher compared with agreement for body weight × height (BW×H; mean difference [lower, upper] LoA = 0.37 BW×H [–1.41, 2.45 BW×H]; β = 0.37 [–1.41, 2.15]; Nextiles sleeve ICC [95% CI] = 0.93 [0.88, 0.96]; KinaTrax ICC [95% CI] = 0.95 [0.92, 0.98]). We found no interaction per pitch type ( P = .47) or pitch thrown ( P = .58). Conclusions The Nextiles sleeve collected pitch counts accurately except for 3 pitchers for whom it did not collect any pitches thrown due to technical errors. However, the demonstrated LoA and convergence were beyond the a priori acceptability threshold and lower than the a priori defined acceptable lower bound of the 95% CI. These results suggest that the Nextiles sleeve does not measure the same construct as KinaTrax.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.321
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207