MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078630054 · doi:10.1177/1941738114529701

Sideline Coverage

2014· article· en· W2078630054 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnklePhysical therapyElbowRadiographyEvidence-based medicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Sidelines coverage presents unique challenges in the evaluation of injured athletes. Health care providers may be confronted with the question of when to obtain radiographs following an injury. Given that most sidelines coverage occurs outside the elite level, radiographs are not readily available at the time of injury, and the decision of when to send a player for radiographs must be made based on physical examination. Clinical tools have been developed to aid in identifying injuries that are likely to result in radiographically important fractures or dislocations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search for the keywords x-ray and decision rule along with the anatomic locations shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee, and ankle was performed using the PubMed database. No limits were set regarding year of publication. We selected meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and survey results. Our selection focused on the largest, most well-studied published reports. We also attempted to include studies that reported the application of the rules to the field of sports medicine. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective literature review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. RESULTS: The Ottawa Foot and Ankle Rules have been validated and implemented and are appropriate for use in both pediatric and adult populations. The Ottawa Knee Rules have been widely studied, validated, and accepted for evaluation of knee injuries. There are promising studies of decision rules for clinically important fractures of the wrist, but these studies have not been validated. The elbow has been evaluated with good outcomes via the elbow extension test, which has been validated in both single and multicenter studies. Currently, there are no reliable clinical decision tools for traumatic sports injuries to the shoulder to aid in the decision of when to obtain radiographs. CONCLUSION: Clinical decision tools have been developed to aid in the diagnosis and management of injuries commonly sustained during sporting events. Tools that have been appropriately validated in populations outside the initial study population can assist sports medicine physicians in the decision of when to get radiographs from the sidelines.

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 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 score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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