[Validation of the Ottawa rules for the Portuguese population: a prospective study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Acute ankle injury is one of the main reasons for observation of patients in the emergency department. Only 15% present with clinically significant fractures, but they are almost always referred for radiography. The Ottawa ankle rules have provided specific directions for carrying out radiography in these situations, allowing a reduction in hospital costs and reducing exposure to ionizing radiation. The aim of the study is to verify that the protocol of the Ottawa rules for evaluating ankle trauma can adapt to a sample of the Portuguese population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study was done in the Emergency Department of Orthopedics, for a period of 9 months, integrating all patients who presented with complaints in the ankle with less than 48 hours development. All patients underwent radiography of the injured area. Radiographic images were evaluated by the orthopaedic doctor in the emergency department. Patients were reassessed in about 10-15 days after injury by the same observer. RESULTS: We evaluated 123 patients. The average age was 35.2 (range, 7 to 88) years. Sixty had positive criteria for radiological assessment, of which 43 had fracture; none of the patients with negative criteria had fratures. Sensitivity of Ottawa ankle rules for detecting fractures was 100%. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules appears to have potential to reduce the number of radiographs for the assessment of these patients by about 51%. The results of this study demonstrate no false negatives and are consistent with the results of other similar studies which sensitizes us to implement these criteria in our emergency services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".