How cryokinetics affect sensory perception, range of motion and postural stability of uninjured and previously injured ankles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injury statistics report that 45% of all athletic injuries are ankle sprains, with 85% of those occurring at the lateral aspect of the ankle. Cryokinetics is a rehabilitation technique that uses cooling with the goal to decrease neural inhibition, thus allowing for greater pain-free range of motion. The present study evaluated how cryokinetics affected sensory perception, range of motion (ROM) and postural stability with previously injured (asymptomatic) versus uninjured ankles. Tactile sensation at the lateral ankle, dorsiflexion at the ankle, as well as postural stability (with eyes open and closed) before and after a cryokinetic protocol were evaluated. The results demonstrate how cryokinetics effects sensory perception, ROM and postural stability in relation to injury history. Two-point discrimination testing demonstrated a significant reduction in tactile acuity after cryokinetics. Functional range of motion testing demonstrated an interaction between a history of ankle injury compared to no injury history, where functional ROM was significantly greater after cryokinetics for previously injured ankles. Overall, vision had the largest impact on postural stability. However, there was an interaction across previous injury history, intervention and vision for median frequency of medial/lateral-Center of Pressure. The current results highlight that ankle injury history is a significant variable when assessing the affects of cryokinetics on functional ROM of ankles and that vision affects postural stability more than cryokinetics. Future research could investigate the effects of cryokinetics on acute care injury management of ankle sprains, and perhaps to ligamentous or soft tissue injuries at joints other than the ankle.
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) | 0.001 | 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".