Back

Prediction of Pivot Shift Grade Using In-Vivo Ultrasound Bone Tracking During Sit-Stand-Sit: A Machine Learning Feasibility Study

Dutta, J.; Tay, I.; Lai, K. W.; Lim Tze En, J.; Chia, Z. Y.

2026-05-13 orthopedics
10.64898/2026.05.10.26352712 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe pivot shift (PS) test is the most specific clinical examination for anterolateral rotational instability in ACL-deficient knees, yet grading remains subjective, as evidenced by poor inter-observer reliability, particularly for Grade 2. Since low-grade (Grade 1) versus high-grade (Grades 2/3) PS is the threshold for recommending lateral extra-articular augmentation, performing the test in awake clinic patients limits grading reproducibility and introduces variability in surgical decision-making. Existing methods to quantify the pivot shift usually require examiner-performed testing under general anaesthesia. No prior approach has ascertained PS grading from a separate patient-performed functional movement. PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility of a machine learning (ML) classifier, trained on kinematic ultrasound bone-tracking signals acquired during a patients sit-stand-sit (SSS) knee movement, to predict their PS grade, and to clinically validate its ability to differentiate low versus high-grade PS. MethodsUltrasound bone-tracking kinematic data were collected during SSS manoeuvres in 23 ACL-injured patients using the GATOR device, and ground truth PS grades (0-3) were assigned under general anaesthesia by fellowship-trained orthopaedic sports surgeons. From the data collected, Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was used to train the ML classifier. Clinical SSS data from 6 ACL-deficient patients was used for independent held-out validation of their low-grade (Grade 1) versus high-grade (Grade 2/3) PS. Multiple deep learning architectures (XceptionTime, InceptionTime, FCN, ResNet, ResCNN) and training strategies (including mixup augmentation and supervised contrastive learning) were tested. Performance was measured by one-versus-rest (OVR) AUC under LOOCV and by AUC (low vs high grade PS) from the held-out patient sessions. ResultsThe ML classifier achieved a maximum OVR AUC of 0.928 {+/-} 0.084 under LOOCV. Classifier performance increased with pivot-shift severity: Grade 3 was identified most reliably (AUC ~0.81; sensitivity 0.70-0.80), whereas Grade 2 remained the most challenging boundary (sensitivity 0.20-0.75 across configurations). For the clinically relevant binary classification of low-versus high-grade pivot shift, the classifier generalised well to a completely unseen patient cohort (AUC 0.889; accuracy 0.860; sensitivity 0.850; minimum-class sensitivity 0.767). ConclusionThe study demonstrates that kinematic ultrasound bone-tracking during sit-stand-sit contains transferable information about rotational instability severity in ACL-deficient patients, and represents the first reported approach to predict pivot shift grade from a patient-performed functional movement. The strong cross-validation performance confirms that the signals contain meaningful PS grade-discriminative information, but larger datasets targeting 50-100 sessions per grade will be required to achieve patient-level generalisation and advance this novel rotational instability assessment tool toward full clinical adoption. Level of EvidenceLevel IV, diagnostic feasibility study.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
11.5%
3
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
4
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.4%
6
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.5%
9
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
10
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.0%
12
Journal of Anatomy
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
13
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
14
Clinical Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
15
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
16
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
18
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
Bone
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.2%
21
Gait & Posture
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
22
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
23
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
24
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
25
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
26
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
27
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
28
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
29
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
Arthritis & Rheumatology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%