MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148798532 · doi:10.1177/1460408610367967

Soft-tissue ankle injuries

2010· article· en· W2148798532 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleSoft tissueLigamentPresentation (obstetrics)Soft tissue injuryPhysical examinationSurgeryAnkle injuryEmergency departmentAcute injury

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soft-tissue ankle injuries are extremely common and frequently present in the emergency department or to the general practitioner. The lateral ligament complex is most commonly affected, usually following an injury with the ankle in an inverted, plantar-flexed position. The diagnosis is usually clinical, and delayed examination and reassessment 3—5 days after injury is recommended as pain and swelling hinder accurate assessment immediately following injury. Applying the Ottawa ankle rules can reduce the number of unnecessary radiographs. Treatment is usually non-operative with the focus on controlling ankle swelling and pain, and early restoration of ankle movements. Surgical repair of ligaments may be indicated in certain cases, though the role of surgery in the acute setting remains unclear. In the present review, we discuss the anatomy, mechanism of injury, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment and outcome of soft-tissue ankle injuries as well as consider how such injuries may be prevented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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