Diagnosis of an isolated posterior malleolar fracture in a young female military cadet: a resident case report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The ankle is the most commonly injured joint during athletic activity. While ankle sprains are certainly the most common injury, ankle fractures can occur frequently. One type of ankle fracture with a reportedly low incidence is the isolated posterior malleolar fracture. Because of the low incidence, isolated posterior malleolar fractures can present a diagnostic challenge. The purpose of this case report is to describe the diagnostic process used for this rare injury that occurred in a physically active college-aged female who injured her ankle when landing from a fall during performance on a military obstacle course. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 19 year old female United States Military Academy cadet presented to a direct access physical therapy clinic. She was limping, not using any assistive device, and was wearing an ace bandage around her right ankle/foot. Two days earlier she fell from a "10 foot high" structure while performing the military obstacle course. She did not recall details of impact, but she was told by several bystanders that it appeared that she landed on her right foot followed immediately by a transition to her buttocks and then to her back. OUTCOMES: Ottawa Ankle Rules and ligamentous testing were negative; however, she was tender to palpation just anterior to the achilles tendon and lateral to the posterior edge of the medial malleolus. Based on mechanism of injury and tenderness of the posterior ankle, a potential posterior ankle fracture was suspected and subsequently confirmed by radiographic studies of the ankle including standard radiographs and computerized tomography. DISCUSSION: While the Ottawa Ankle Rules are generally effective in detecting many types of ankle fractures, clinicians should not rely solely on such prediction rules. This case highlights the importance of completing a thorough history and performing a thorough physical examination. This case report focuses on differential diagnosis. It is important to consider all aspects of the patient evaluation process collectively instead of examination pieces individually.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".