MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500547550

Conservative management of posterior ankle impingement: a case report.

2016· article· en· W2500547550 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Sénécal, Nadia Richer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleRehabilitationChiropracticProprioceptionAnkle sprainSoft tissuePhysical therapyManual therapySurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pain and functional improvements of a patient with posterior ankle impingement following a treatment plan incorporating soft tissue therapy, chiropractic adjustment and a progressive rehabilitation program. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 37-year- old male presented with posterolateral ankle pain exacerbated by plantar flexion two weeks after sustaining an inversion ankle sprain. Oedema was present and the patient was describing a sensation of instability while walking. The initial diagnosis of lateral ankle sprain was found to be complicated by a posterior ankle impingement caused by a tenosynovitis of the flexor hallucis longus sheath suspected during the physical examination and confirmed by MRI. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was treated over a 14-week period. Soft tissue therapy, a rehabilitation program and cortisone injection were used to treat this condition. A precise description of the rehabilitation program that contains open kinetic chain, closed kinetic chain, proprioception, and conditioning exercises prescribed to the patient is given. After the treatment plan, the patient returned to play pain free and had no daily living restrictions. SUMMARY: A protocol including rest, soft tissue therapy, open and closed kinetic chain exercises, sport-specific exercises and cortisone injection appeared to facilitate complete recovery of this patient's posterior ankle impingement.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207