MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12741430

Use of abdominal computed tomography in blunt trauma: do we scan too much?

2000· article· en· W12741430 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bryan G. Garber, E. Bigelow, Jean-Denis Yelle, Giuseppe Pagliarello

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdomenBluntGlasgow Coma ScaleAbdominal traumaInjury Severity ScoreComputed tomographyRetrospective cohort studyRadiologyBlunt traumaCohortTrauma centerNuclear medicineSurgeryPoison controlInjury preventionEmergency medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine what proportion of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans ordered after blunt trauma are positive and the applicability and accuracy of existing clinical prediction rules for obtaining a CT scan of the abdomen in this setting. SETTING: A leading trauma hospital, affiliated with the University of Ottawa. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with blunt trauma admitted to hospital over a 1-year period having an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 12 who underwent CT of the abdomen during the initial assessment. Recorded data included age, sex, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, ISS, type of injuries, number of abdominal CT scans ordered, and scan results. Two clinical prediction rules were found in the literature that identify patients likely to have intra-abdominal injuries. These rules were applied retrospectively to the cohort. The predicted proportion of positive CT scans was compared with the observed proportion, and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 297 patients entered in the study, 109 underwent abdominal CT. The median age was 32 years, 71% were male and the median ISS was 24. In only 36.7% (40 of 109) of scans were findings suggestive of intra-abdominal injuries. Application of one of the clinical prediction rules gave a sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 25.5% but excluded 23% of patients because of a GCS score less than 11. The second prediction rule tested could be applied to all patients and was highly sensitive (92.5%) and specific (100.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of the abdomen in blunt trauma remains a challenge. Accuracy in predicting positive scans in equivocal cases is poor. Retrospective application of an existing clinical prediction rule was found to be highly accurate in identifying patients with positive CT findings. Prospective use of such a rule could reduce the number of CT scans ordered without missing significant 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207