MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599506868 · doi:10.51415/10321/2031

The efficacy of adjusting foot and ankle fixations in the treatment of sub-acute and chronic achilles tendonitis

2001· dissertation· en· W2599506868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason Gaymans

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnklePlaceboMcGill Pain QuestionnairePhysical therapyFoot (prosody)Rating scalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual analogue scaleSurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of adjusting foot and ankle fixations compared to placebo in the treatment of sub-acute and chronic Achilles tendonitis. It is hypothesised that by adjusting those fixations in terms of the above would result in more of a significant improvement than placebo. Summary of the background data A search of the literature failed to reveal any studies on this topic. Study design A single blind, comparative, controlled study. MetllIods Forty subjects with sub-acute or chronic Achilles tendonitis were randomly divided into two different groups (Group 1 = 21 patients, Group 2 = 19). The ages ranged from 15 to 60 years. The first group received adjustments to any fixations present in the foot and ankle, whilst the second group received placebo (detuned ultrasound) only. Both groups received six interventions over a maximum period of four weeks. Subjective measurements were the McGill Short Form Pain Questionnaire and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale-l 01, and the objective measurements included algometer readings to assess pain threshold and goniometer readings to measure ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. All assessments were taken at the 1st, 2nd , 3rd, and final interventions. Results Significant improvements were detected between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of percentage pain intensity between the 1st and 3rd and 1st and final visit. Significant improvements were detected between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of pain threshold between the 1st and 2nd , 1st and 3rd and 1st and final visit. Significant improvements were detected between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of pain experienced (quality and intensity), between the 1st and 3rd, and 1st and final visit. Significant improvements were detected between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion between the 1st and 3rd, 1st and final visit. Statistical analysis within Group 1 showed significant improvements in pain experienced (quality and intensity) between the 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd, and 1st and final visits. Significant improvements were noted in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion between the 1st and 2nd, and 3rd, and 1st and final visits. Significant differences were observed in percentage pain intensity between the 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd, and 1st and final visits. Significant increases in pain threshold were noted between the 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd, and 1st and final visits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207