MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111007841 · doi:10.5312/wjo.v11.i12.534

Acute ankle sprain in athletes: Clinical aspects and algorithmic approach

2020· review· en· W3111007841 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Orthopedics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleAthletesPhysical therapyRehabilitationManual therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLigamentPsychological interventionModalitiesPhysical examinationSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute ankle sprain is the most common lower limb injury in athletes and accounts for 16%-40% of all sports-related injuries. It is especially common in basketball, American football, and soccer. The majority of sprains affect the lateral ligaments, particularly the anterior talofibular ligament. Despite its high prevalence, a high proportion of patients experience persistent residual symptoms and injury recurrence. A detailed history and proper physical examination are diagnostic cornerstones. Imaging is not indicated for the majority of ankle sprain cases and should be requested according to the Ottawa ankle rules. Several interventions have been recommended in the management of acute ankle sprains including rest, ice, compression, and elevation, analgesic and anti-inflammatory medications, bracing and immobilization, early weight-bearing and walking aids, foot orthoses, manual therapy, exercise therapy, electrophysical modalities and surgery (only in selected refractory cases). Among these interventions, exercise and bracing have been recommended with a higher level of evidence and should be incorporated in the rehabilitation process. An exercise program should be comprehensive and progressive including the range of motion, stretching, strengthening, neuromuscular, proprioceptive, and sport-specific exercises. Decision-making regarding return to the sport in athletes may be challenging and a sports physician should determine this based on the self-reported variables, manual tests for stability, and functional performance testing. There are some common myths and mistakes in the management of ankle sprains, which all clinicians should be aware of and avoid. These include excessive imaging, unwarranted non-weight-bearing, unjustified immobilization, delay in functional movements, and inadequate rehabilitation. The application of an evidence-based algorithmic approach considering the individual characteristics is helpful and should be recommended.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.306 · 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