MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113210193 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0589.20

Patient Outcomes After Treatment by Athletic Therapy Students

2021· article· en· W3113210193 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAthletic Training and Education
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationMinimal clinically important differenceCohortCohort studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be used in athletic training and athletic therapy but are rarely incorporated in internships. Student-run clinics are common in other health professions and provide effective treatment and valuable learning environments. To our knowledge, no one has evaluated rehabilitation outcomes in patients treated by athletic therapy students (ATSs). OBJECTIVE: To measure the improvement in function in injured patients seeking treatment at an ATS clinic. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: An ATS clinic. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 59 patients (32 women, age = 33.9 ± 14.7 years; 27 men, age = 38 ± 14.4 years) from the community with a variety of low back, lower extremity, and upper extremity injuries participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): At baseline and 6-week follow-up, all patients completed 1 of 3 scales (depending on their injury location) to assess their injured level of function. Scales were the Oswestry Disability Index for low back injuries; Lower Extremity Functional Scale for lower extremity injuries; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand for upper extremity injuries. RESULTS: On average, patients received 4.7 ± 1.8 treatments across 48.8 ± 16.1 days. They experienced an increase in function between baseline and follow-up assessments (18.8% ± 20.3%; P < .001, Cohen d = 1.06). Moreover, the amount of functional improvement was clinically meaningful, as it was greater than the minimal clinically important difference for each scale. The efficacy of treatments did not differ according to the internship experiences of the ATSs. CONCLUSIONS: Function improved in patients after treatment delivered by an ATS. Patient-reported outcome measures were useful for the students in monitoring patient improvement, but more research is needed regarding effective treatments for patients with chronic pain. Our results suggested that ATS clinics provide effective treatments for patients, service to the community, and a learning opportunity for students.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.344 · 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