MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071049355 · doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0075

Should a Head-Injured Child Receive a Head CT Scan? A Systematic Review of Clinical Prediction Rules

2009· review· en· W2071049355 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathon L. Maguire, Kathy Boutis, Elizabeth Uleryk, Andreas Laupacis, Patricia C. Parkin

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalClinical prediction ruleGlasgow Coma ScaleComa (optics)SedationClinical judgmentContext (archaeology)PopulationHead injuryHead traumaPediatricsMedical physicsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Given radiation- and sedation-associated risks, there is uncertainty about which children with head trauma should receive cranial computed tomography (CT) scanning. A high-quality and high-performing clinical prediction rule may reduce this uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the quality and performance of published clinical prediction rules for intracranial injury in children with head injury. METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched in December 2008. Studies were selected if they included clinical prediction rules involving children aged 0 to 18 years with a history of head injury. Prediction-rule quality was assessed by using 14 previously published items. Prediction-rule performance was evaluated by rule sensitivity and the predicted frequency of CT scanning if the rule was used. RESULTS: A total of 3357 titles and abstracts were assessed, and 8 clinical prediction rules were identified. For all studies, the rule derivations were reported; no study validated a rule in a separate population or assessed its impact in actual practice. The rules differed considerably in population, predictors, outcomes, methodologic quality, and performance. Five of the rules were applicable to children of all ages and severities of trauma. Two of these were high quality (>or=11 of 14 quality items) and had high performance (lower confidence limits for sensitivity >0.95 and required or=13). One of these had high quality (11 of 14 quality items) and high performance (lower confidence limit for sensitivity = 0.94 and required 13% to undergo CT). Four of the 8 rules were applicable to young children, but none exhibited adequate quality or performance. CONCLUSIONS: Eight clinical prediction-rule derivation studies were identified. They varied considerably in population, methodologic quality, and performance. Future efforts should be directed toward validating rules with high quality and performance in other populations and deriving a high-quality, high-performance rule for young children.

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 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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations139
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207