MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969167985 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2014-110090

Physician practice and PECARN rule outperform CATCH and CHALICE rules based on the detection of traumatic brain injury as defined by PECARN

2014· letter· en· W1969167985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Franz E Babl, Silvia Bressan

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComputed tomographyPediatricsGold standard (test)CohortSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on : Easter JS, Bakes K, Dhaliwal J, et al. Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE rules for children with minor head injury: a prospective cohort study. Ann Emerg Med 2014;64:145–52.e5.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] The recognition of significant traumatic intracranial injuries is important and cranial CT is the gold standard for their diagnosis. However, CT bears risks associated with ionising radiation-induced malignancies, in particular in children. Three high-quality clinical decision rules (CDR) have been developed to assist with decision-making on whether or not to use a cranial CT scan in children who sustain a trauma to the head1: the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head injury (CATCH)2 the Children's Head injury Algorithm for the prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE)3 and the rule developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN).4 They differ significantly in their predictor variables and suggested course of action. They have been derived using different outcomes, inclusion and exclusion criteria and have focused on different severities … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnn%2BEmerg%2BMed%26rft.volume%253D64%26rft.spage%253D145%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.annemergmed.2014.01.030%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24635987%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.01.030&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=24635987&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F1%2F33.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.290
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207