The effects of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine rehabilitation programs on post-acute ankle sprain: A randomized controlled trial study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankle sprain is a common clinical disease, which has the highest incidence rate among joint and ligament injuries. And acute ankle sprains can easily develop into chronic ankle instability, thereby increasing the difficulty of treatment. The current clinical guidelines for post-acute ankle sprains are still controversial. Pain and functional impairment are the most significant symptoms after ankle sprain. The main purpose of this study is to explore the safety and effectiveness of the intervention of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine rehabilitation programs on post-acute ankle sprains. METHODS: This study is a single center, prospective, intervention randomized controlled trial with a control group. 174 patients of 18-35 years old with post-acute ankle sprain will be included. A randomized controlled study is conducted and divided into a control group and an experimental group. The control group receive routine treatment, while the experimental group receive integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine rehabilitation programs. The intervention lasted for a total of 2 weeks. The main outcome measures are Visual Analog Scale and Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire; the secondary outcome measures are the Foot Ankle Ability Assessment Scale, AOFAS Ankle Posterior Foot Scale, torque and gait. This study protocol aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine rehabilitation programs by comparing the results of two groups before and after treatment. This protocol will follow the SPIRIT guidance. DISCUSSION: At present, there is a lack of rehabilitation management for post-acute ankle sprains. Therefore, this study has the potential to improve the healthcare for post-acute ankle sprains patients and might be used for future standardized evidence-based rehabilitation concepts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=234465 (Registration No.: ChiCTR2400087456). Date: 2024-07-29.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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.
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".