MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388978491 · doi:10.17762/jaz.v44is6.2092

Evaluation of Trunk Muscle Endurance in Chronic Ankle Instability

2023· article· en· W4388978491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noha Mahmoud Youssef, H.E. Fawaz, Ahmed Salamah Yamany, Azza Mohammed Abdelmohsen, Ghada M Elhafez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Of Advanced Zoology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrunkMedicineAnklePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCore (optical fiber)AnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Testing the association between trunk muscle endurance and chronic ankle instability (CAI) is very important to recognize risk factors related to CAI. This facilitates prevention of injury and management of the associated musculoskeletal deficits of CAI. Objective: to assess endurance of trunk muscles in females with CAI. Methods: This study consisted of 62 females, allocated into two equal groups of 31; the experimental group (A) included females with CAI and the healthy control (Group B) included healthy females. McGill core endurance tests (prone-bridge, right side-bridge, left side-bridge, trunk flexion and horizontal back extension) were administered to assess trunk muscle endurance. Results: Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in trunk muscle endurance between the two tested groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Although, the results indicated higher values of trunk endurance in the CAI group compared with their healthy controls, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. This denotes the compensatory mechanism that altered ankle-hip strategy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Of Advanced ZoologySame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207