Cervical Spine Clearance in Obtunded Blunt Trauma Patients: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: : An acceptable algorithm for clearance of the cervical spine (C-spine) in the obtunded trauma patient remains controversial. Undetected C-spine injuries of an unstable nature can have devastating consequences. This has led to reluctance toward C-spine clearance in these patients. OBJECTIVE: : To objectify the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) scanning compared with dynamic radiographs within a well established C-spine clearance protocol in obtunded trauma patients at a level I trauma center. METHODS: : This was a prospective study of consecutive blunt trauma patients (18 years or older) admitted to a single institution between December 2004 and April 2008. To be eligible for study inclusion, patients must have undergone both a CT scan and dynamic plain radiographs of their C-spine as a part of their clearance process. RESULTS: : Among 402 patients, there was one injury missed on CT but detected by dynamic radiographs. This resulted in a percentage of missed injury of 0.25%. Subsequent independent review of the CT scan revealed that in fact pathologic changes were present on the scan indicative of the injury. CONCLUSIONS: : Our results indicate that CT of the C-spine is highly sensitive in detecting the vast majority (99.75%) of clinically significant C-spine injuries. We recommend that CT be used as the sole modality to radiographically clear the C-spine in obtunded trauma patients and do not support the use of flexion-extension radiographs as an ancillary diagnostic method.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".