MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389914147 · doi:10.55783/amf.191008

Lesiones en el tobillo y el pie

2023· article· es· W4389914147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francisco Vargas Negrín, Raquel García Luque, Natalia Viera Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueActualización en Medicina de Familia · 2023
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Puntos clave La práctica deportiva conlleva cierto riesgo de sufrir lesiones en el tobillo y el pie debido a la naturaleza de los movimientos, impactos y demandas físicas que se ejercen sobre estas áreas. El esguince de tobillo es una de las lesiones más comunes que se producen durante la práctica deportiva. La solicitud de radiografía no es obligatoria. Considerar las Reglas de Ottawa para solicitarla si: – Dolor en el hueso maleolar (maléolo lateral o maléolo medial) o en el hueso del mediopié (zona del escafoides o del quinto metatarsiano). – Incapacidad para caminar durante al menos cuatro pasos inmediatamente después de la lesión y en la evaluación en la sala de urgencias. Las medidas de tratamiento habituales para las lesiones de tobillo y pie pueden variar según la gravedad y el tipo de lesión, básicamente incluyen: reposo, aplicación de frío, vendajes compresivos (vídeos 1 y 2) o de soporte, elevación del pie, medicamentos para el dolor y la inflamación, fisioterapia y uso de calzado adecuado. Es posible prevenirlas en gran medida siguiendo ciertas recomendaciones (calentamiento apropiado, uso de calzado adecuado, fortalecimiento y estiramiento de los músculos, técnica deportiva adecuada, e incremento gradual la intensidad del ejercicio).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueActualización en Medicina de FamiliaSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207