Comparison of the Psychological Profile of Ankle Sprain Between Coper and Chronic Ankle Instability Individuals: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to compare the psychological parameters in Coper individuals and people with chronic ankle instability (CAI).Methods: This study was a cross-sectional and comparative study. Sixty elite athletes, from multiple athletic disciplines, who have suffered from lateral ankle sprains at least once in the last two years, were selected as research subjects and were divided into two groups: Copers (n = 30) and CAI (n = 30). Classification of CAI, and coper groups were done by AJFAT, CAIT and FAAM self-report questionnaires. Athletes' psychological characteristics were measured using the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and independent t-test were used to evaluate the differences between groups at a significance level of 0.05. Results: The results showed there was a significant difference between the two groups in Goal setting, Self-confidence, Commitment, Relaxation, Fear control and Coping with stress, Focusing, Refocusing, and Mental practice (P <0.05). And Coper athletes scored higher than ankle instability athletes. But there were no significant differences between the two groups in the following parameters: Inactivation, Imagery, and Competition planning skills (P <0.05).Conclusion: The findings showed that athletes with CAI scored lower than Coper athletes on psychological exams. Given the importance of prioritizing the mental components of goal setting, imagery, relaxation, activation, and self-confidence, the design of the competition should be a priority for rehabilitation. Therefore, coaches and sports experts are recommended to focus and improve mental skills in athletes who suffer from sports injuries, to reduce the occurrence of repetitive sports injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".