MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Prehospital Transport of Head-Injured Patients after Consolidation of Neurosurgery Resources

2002· article· en· W2010514325 on OpenAlexaff
Carol D. Holmen, Terry Sosnowski, K Latoszek, Darryl Dow, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleTriageHead injuryTrauma centerCraniotomyIntracranial hematomaNeurosurgeryEmergency medicineMedical emergencySurgeryHematomaRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Consolidation of neurosurgical (NS) services resulted in emergency medical services guidelines mandating transport of head-injured patients to the NS center if the Glasgow Coma Scale score is < 14 and prehospital index is > 3. This study determined what paramedic, system, or patient factors were associated with secondary head-injury transfer. METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review from January 1996 to November 1998. RESULTS: Ninety-one patient charts were reviewed. The median transport delay to the NS site was 4 hours 22 minutes. After transfer, 79 (96%) patients were admitted, 25 (30%) underwent craniotomy, and 18 (22%) died. The final diagnosis in 35 (43%) cases was subdural hematoma. Triage guidelines were violated in five patients (6%) and the NS center was on diversion in three (4%) cases. Most delays were related to patient presentations; 17 (21%) patients had no history of head trauma. CONCLUSION: Unpredictable patient factors were the most frequent reasons patients required secondary transfer; few protocol violations or system factors were identified. No modifications to the current NS triage criteria are recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207