MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124227341

Management of Acute Ankle Sprains: Common Questions and Answers.

2025· article· en· W7124227341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Velyn Wu, Cheree Ann Padilla, Nicholas Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleAnkle sprainRehabilitationAnkle injuryPhysical examinationManual therapyMagnetic resonance imaging
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute ankle sprains are a common musculoskeletal injury. As part of the physical examination, a combination of ankle-specific tests should be used to evaluate ligaments. Delaying the examination until 4 to 7 days postinjury increases diagnostic accuracy of sprain severity. In the acute setting, the Ottawa Foot and Ankle rules can help determine when radiography does not need to be ordered to evaluate for fracture. Management of acute ankle sprains should include joint protection, pain control, external ankle supports for 5 to 10 days, early functional activity, and targeted rehabilitation exercises. Oral medications such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids are equally effective in managing pain. Recovery includes the use of external ankle supports (eg, semirigid braces) and a targeted neuromuscular rehabilitation program for 8 to 12 weeks. Continuing functional exercises and the use of external ankle support during sport after recovery can aid in the prevention of recurrent ankle sprains. If an ankle sprain does not follow the expected course of recovery, further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging should be performed to evaluate for other causes of acute lateral ankle injuries, such as talar fractures and peroneal tendon injuries.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207