Pain Mechanosensitivity in Individuals With and Without a History of Lateral Ankle Sprain: A Critically Appraised Topic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Scenario: Pain is a common symptom experienced by individuals who sustain an acute lateral ankle sprain and can continue to persist among those who develop chronic ankle instability. Most rehabilitation protocols for individuals with acute ankle sprains or chronic ankle instability focus on restoring physical impairments and have largely omitted any pain-relieving therapies. This impairment-based focus has led pain to be an understudied symptom among individuals with an ankle sprain history. Overlooking the role of pain has also left clinicians with little insight into whether pain experienced after an ankle sprain is local (i.e., peripheral sensitization) or widespread (i.e., central sensitization). Understanding the pain profiles for those with an ankle sprain history may represent an unexploited area for clinicians and future research to improve health outcomes for this patient population. Clinical Question: Is there evidence to suggest that pain mechanosensitivity levels are different between those with and without a history of lateral ankle sprain? Summary of Key Findings: The literature was systematically searched for Level 4 evidence or higher. The search yielded two cross-sectional case-control studies and one cross-sectional study that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the available evidence, pain mechanosensitivity levels are lower across ligamentous stabilizers immediately after an acute ankle sprain and over lower extremity neuromuscular structures among individuals with chronic ankle instability. Clinical Bottom Line: There is weak evidence to support an ankle sprain history can affect local pain mechanosensitivity levels of structures surrounding the ankle but not at distant locations. Strength of Recommendation: Level 4 evidence is available according to the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine.
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 | 0.006 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".