Prise en charge de l’entorse de cheville par les médecins généralistes : évaluation à l’aveugle par les internes en stage de praticien niveau 1 en Aquitaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: the ankle sprain represents a large number of consultations in France in emergencies but only 1% of consultations in general medicine. The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic, radiological and therapeutic management of a sprained ankle in general practice GPs in Aquitaine. Material and methods: this was a descriptive multi - center observational study performed in single - blind mode in the Nouvelle - Aquitaine area, with observation by the live residents during a consultation for a sprained ankle, and filling in a questionnaire. Evaluation criteria are proposed in the analysis. Results: out of 230 practitioners, 32 questionnaires were returned. During the interrogation, almost a third of general practitioners did not ask for haematoma, traumatic ankle history or haematoma. 69 p cent did not make anterior drawer, respectively 53% and 41% did not examine the scaphoid bone and the 5th metatarsal. 31% of physicians did not meet the Ottawa criteria. Only 34% offered icing, 12% did not put contention, 40% offered physiotherapy, 65% did not offer consultation control. The older the patient (p = 0.0047), and when the patient had a sedentary occupation (p = 0.0258), the lower was the evaluation criteria. Discussion: the management of a sprained ankle by general practitioner masters of university residentships seems more or less validated. The evaluation criteria highlight management deficiencies when the patient is sedentary and the age is high.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".