MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postoperative Rehabilitation Protocols for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

2006· review· en· W2049031467 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchilles tendonRehabilitationSports medicineSurgeryTendonOrthopedic surgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol after surgical repair of an Achilles tendon rupture is unknown. Although a 6-week cast immobilization is common, many early functional rehabilitation protocols have been implemented. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to determine if an early functional protocol for surgical repair of an acute Achilles tendon rupture improves subjective patient satisfaction without an increase in rerupture rates. Secondary outcomes of interest from an early functional protocol include infections, range of motion, strength, and minor complications. An extensive literature search for randomized or quasirandomized studies identified six trials involving 315 patients. Early functional treatment protocols, when compared with postoperative immobilization, led to more excellent rated subjective responses and no difference in rerupture rate. Our conclusions are based on six trials with small sample sizes, and larger randomized trials are required to confirm these results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, Level II (Systematic review of Level II studies or Level I studies with inconsistent results).

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.345 · 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