MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions for preventing ankle ligament injuries

2017· article· en· W4231677016 on OpenAlexaff
Kasper W Janssen, Philip J. van der Wees, Brian H. Rowe, Rob de Bie, Willem van Mechelen, Evert Verhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnklePsychological interventionLigamentProtocol (science)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAlternative medicineSurgeryPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions for preventing ankle ligament injuries and re-injuries. It is anticipated that the population will consist predominantly of individuals, from adolescence to middle age, who are participating in regular sports and other physical activities. Where possible, individuals undergoing rehabilitation for ankle sprains will be analysed separately. The specific objectives of this review are to assess differences in outcomes between: Any intervention aimed at the prevention of ankle ligament injuries versus no intervention; Different interventions aimed at the prevention of ankle ligament 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.014
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.009

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207