P41 <b>Correlation between analgesics</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Objectives To determine the effect of adding analgesics to a standardised rehabilitation program following lateral ankle sprain (LAS) on long-term outcome measures. Background Recent guidelines report strong evidence that a short course of certain analgesics may decrease pain and improve function following lateral ankle sprain (LAS). However, reports of swelling and static instability in subjects receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) following LAS have led to concerns of adverse healing and have been criticised for short-term follow-ups and limited outcome measures. Methods and Measures All Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members reporting to Garrison Petawawa with an acute grade I/II LAS were invited to participate. Eligible subjects were provided a standardised rehabilitation program and randomised to receive either; no medication or a 7 day course of: acetaminophen 500 mg four times/day, celecoxib 100 mg twice/day, or naproxen 500 mg twice/day. In order to determine a statistically significant difference between groups in the Activities of Daily Living subscale of the Foot and Ankle Abilities Measure, using a two-sided significance set at 0.05, a power of 80%, and an estimated attrition rate of 25%, 40 subjects/group were required. Secondary outcome measures included clinical measures of pain, swelling, mobility and instability at 2, 4 and 52 weeks. Results To date, 66 subjects have been enrolled and randomised into the; no medication (n=17, 28.3±9.9 years), acetaminophen (n=17, 28.6±7.2 years), celecoxib (n=16, 51.8±14.9 years), or naproxen (n=17, 32.7±10.7 years) groups. All subjects have reported clinically relevant changes in pain and self-reported function between baseline and 3 months, without any differences static instability. Interestingly, only subjects in the no medication or acetaminophen groups have reported clinically relevant changes in swelling. Conclusion The preliminary results of this study suggest that the concerns regarding adverse effects on healing and delayed recovery in subjects receiving NSAIDs following LAS may require reconsideration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".