Ankle Supports Enhance Only Psychological Aspects of the Ankle-GO Score in Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Chronic ankle instability (CAI) is the most serious long-term complication following an ankle sprain. Taping and bracing are frequently employed in the return to sport (RTS) continuum to avoid injury recurrence and to maximize post-injury performance. The Ankle-GO score is a valid and reliable objective RTS criteria, but the influence of ankle supports on this score in CAI patients remains unknown.OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the induce effects of taping or bracing on the Ankle-GO score among patients suffering from CAI.DESIGN: Crossover StudySETTING: Sports medicine research laboratoryPATIENTS: Thirty CAI patients (13 males and 17 females, 33.4 ±11.7 years) performed the Ankle-GO score in three conditions (taping, bracing and no ankle support).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Ankle-GO is a 25-point score clustering 2 self-reported questionnaires (Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and Ankle Ligament Reconstruction-Return to Sport after Injury) and 4 functional tests (Single Leg Stance, Star Excursion Balance Test, Side Hop Test and Figure-of-eight test). Performances on each component as well as the total score were compared between conditions using repeated measures of ANOVA.RESULTS: Taping and bracing significantly and equally improved the Ankle-GO score compared with no support (12.8 ±5.3 and 11.2 ±4.2 vs. 8 ±4.5 points respectively, P<.001). However, significant improvements were found solely in self-reported questionnaires with ankle support (P<.001). No differences were found in functional tests, although both taping and bracing significantly lowered instability perception during the tests (+1.9 and +1.8 points, respectively).CONCLUSION: Ankle-GO scores were significantly enhanced with taping or bracing. However, only self-reported function and psychological readiness were improved. Functional performance was not altered, although external supports enhanced perceived stability. Both taping and bracing supports appear equally important in improving self-confidence and perceived ankle stability among individuals with CAI returning to sport.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".