Lässt sich die Canadian CT Head Rule für das leichte Schädel-Hirn-Trauma auf Deutschland übertragen?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the applicability of the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) on head trauma patients in a German university hospital. METHODS: 122 patients (m = 74; f = 48; 40 +/- 19 years) were examined with cranial CT due to minor head trauma. The need for cranial CT according to the CCHR was evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: With a sensitivity of 98.9 % and a specificity of 46.6 % all patients with the need for neurosurgical intervention were detected by applying the major criteria of the CCHR. Also, every patient with severe brain injury was detected by the extended criteria with a sensitivity of 99.6 % and a specificity of 34.1 %. This would have led to a reduction in the rate of cranial CT examinations by 45.1 % for the major and 22.1 % for the extended criteria. No patient with severe brain injury would have been missed by application of the criteria. CONCLUSION: The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head trauma is applicable with a very high sensitivity and the potential of significantly reducing the rate of cranial CT examinations in these patients.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
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 it