Outcomes of pediatric patients with persistent midline cervical spine tenderness and negative imaging result after trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to guide management of pediatric patients with persistent cervical spine tenderness after trauma but with negative initial imaging study findings. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of clinically significant cervical spine injury among pediatric blunt trauma patients discharged from the emergency department with negative imaging study findings but persistent midline cervical spine tenderness. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective study of subjects 1 year to 15 years of age discharged in a rigid cervical spine collar after blunt trauma over a 5-year period. We included patients with negative imaging results who were maintained in a collar because of persistent midline cervical spine tenderness. Primary outcome was clinically significant cervical spine injury. Secondary outcome was continued use of the collar after follow-up. Outcomes were ascertained from the medical record or self-report via telephone call. RESULTS: A total of 307 subjects met inclusion criteria, of whom 289 (94.1%) had follow-up information available (89.6% in chart, 10.4% via telephone call). Of those with follow-up information, 189 (65.4%) had subspecialty follow-up in the spine clinic. Of those with spine clinic follow-up, 84.6% had the hard collar discontinued at the first visit (median time to visit, 10 days). Of subjects with spine clinic follow-up, 10.1% were left in the collar for persistent tenderness without findings on imaging and 2.1% had imaging findings related to their injury; none required surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: A very small percentage of subjects with persistent midline cervical spine tenderness and normal radiographic study findings have a clinically significant cervical spine injury identified at follow-up. Referral for subspecialty evaluation may only be necessary in a small number of patients with persistent tenderness or concerning signs/symptoms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".