MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047783945 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e31829bb7fe

Chest x-ray as a screening tool for blunt thoracic trauma in children

2013· article· en· W2047783945 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Yanchar, Kenneth Woo, Maureen Brennan, Cameron S. Palmer, Michael Ee, Brian Sweeney, Joe Crameri

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluntThoracic traumaMedicineX-rayRadiologyPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of thoracic computed tomography (CT) to screen for injuries in pediatric blunt thoracic trauma (BTT), we determined whether chest x-ray (CXR) and other clinical and epidemiologic variables could be used to predict significant thoracic injuries, to inform the selective use of CT in pediatric BTT. We further queried if these were discrepant from factors associated with the decision to obtain a thoracic CT. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included cases of BTT from three Level I pediatric trauma centers between April 1999 and March 2008. Pre-CT epidemiologic, clinical, and radiologic variables associated with CT findings of any thoracic injury or a significant thoracic injury as well as the decision to obtain a thoracic CT were determined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 425 patients, 40% patients had a significant thoracic injury, 49% had nonsignificant thoracic injury, and 11% had no thoracic injury at all. Presence of hydrothorax and/or pneumothorax on CXR significantly increased the likelihood of significant chest injury visualized by CT (adjusted odds ratio 10.8; 95% confidence interval, 6.5-18), as did the presence of isolated subcutaneous emphysema (adjusted odds ratio, 19.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-168). Although a normal CXR finding was not statistically associated with a reduced risk of significant thoracic injury, 8 of the 9 cases with normal CXR findings and significant injuries involved occult pneumothoraces or hemothoraces not requiring intervention. Converse to features suggesting increased risk of significant injury, the decision to obtain a thoracic CT was only associated with later period in the study and obtaining a CT scan of another body region. CONCLUSION: CXR can be used to screen for significant thoracic injuries and direct the selective use of thoracic CT in pediatric BTT. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and develop guidelines that include CXR to define indications for thoracic CT in pediatric BTT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

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)0.001
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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207