MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Etiology and Biomechanics of First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Sprains (turf toe) in Athletes

2012· review· en· W2029859511 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca E. Frimenko, W. Brent Lievers, Michael J. Coughlin, Robert B. Anderson, Jeff R. Crandall, Richard W. Kent

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsAthletesMedicineJoint (building)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySports medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sprains of the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, referred to colloquially as "turf toe," are a debilitating sports injury because the hallux is pivotal to an athletes' ability to accelerate and cut. Severe sprains may require weeks to full recovery, and injuries requiring surgery may prevent an athlete from full athletic participation for months. Whereas the diagnosis and treatment of turf toe are well documented in the literature, less is known about the biomechanics of this joint and the mechanical properties of the structures that compose it. Nevertheless, this information is vital to those, such as equipment designers, who attempt to develop athletic footwear and surfaces intended to reduce the likelihood of injury. To that end, this review summarizes the literature on the anatomy of the first MTP joint, on biomechanical studies of the first MTP joint, and on the incidence, mechanisms, and treatment of turf toe. Furthermore, gaps in the literature are identified and opportunities for future research are discussed. Only through a thorough synthesis of the anatomic, biomechanical, and clinical knowledge regarding first MTP joint sprains can appropriate countermeasures be designed to reduce the prevalence and severity of these injuries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207