The ability of the Biodex Stability System to distinguish level of function in subjects with a second-degree ankle sprain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the capacity of the Biodex Stability System using a one-leg stance protocol to differentiate between injured and non-injured limbs and between level of disabilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Military and civilian clinic. SUBJECTS: Thirty-four individuals with a second-degree lateral ankle sprain and 36 healthy subjects. METHODS AND MEASURES: Subjects were tested on the Stability System 30 days after injury using a one-leg stance protocol in the dynamic limit-of-stability mode. All subjects also filled out a disability questionnaire (Lower Extremity Functional Scale). The groups were compared based on the overall dynamic limit-of-stability score and its relationship with the score on the disability questionnaire was also examined. RESULTS: The overall dynamic limit-of-stability scores (subjects with a lateral ankle sprain: 13.0% (5.5)-26.0% (9.2); healthy subjects: 16.9% (7.9)-27.9% (9.6)) clustered in the lower end of the theoretical range of 0-100%. Statistically significant differences in the overall dynamic limit-of-stability scores were found between the injured and non-injured limbs but group differences were small and clinically not relevant. No significant relationships were found between the overall dynamic limit-of-stability scores and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale scores (58.2 (11.8)) of the subjects with a lateral ankle sprain. CONCLUSIONS: The one-leg stance protocol carried out in the dynamic limit-of-stability mode is very challenging and offers a very limited capacity to differentiate between injured and non-injured limbs. The main outcome of the Stability System does not appear to be a good indicator of the functional capacity of people with a lateral ankle sprain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".