Identification of blunt abdominal injuries in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of computed tomography (CT) to screen for injuries in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is increasing, concurrent with increasing concern over long-term risk of radiation-associated malignancies. We proposed to determine features that could be identified in the early assessment of these patients, which can predict the likelihood of clinically important intra-abdominal injuries warranting imaging by CT. We further queried if these were discrepant from factors associated with the decision to obtain an abdominal CT. METHODS: Data of patients admitted with BAT to one of two Level I pediatric trauma centers were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and epidemiologic data were collected. Logistic regression was used to determine associations between pre-CT findings and ultimate diagnoses of "notable" or "clinically important" intra-abdominal injuries. Similar analyses were performed to determine which findings were associated with actually receiving an abdominal CT scan. RESULTS: Of 571 patients, 37% had a notable intra-abdominal injury and 18% a clinically important intra-abdominal injury. After adjusting for all covariates, hematuria (gross or microscopic), elevated serum alanine aminotransferase, and documentation of clinically concerning abdominal findings upon examination remained significant predictors (odds ratio (OR), 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.8; OR, 10.9; 95% CI, 2.5-47, respectively) of a clinically important injury. Undergoing a CT head and the presence of hematuria were significantly associated with obtaining a CT of the abdomen (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5-7.7; OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.3, respectively), while concerning abdominal findings and decreased Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score were not. CONCLUSION: Clinical variables may be used to predict intra-abdominal injuries after pediatric BAT that may warrant imaging with CT scanning. Combined with findings from similar studies, it may be possible to derive and validate a decision-making rule both sensitive and specific in predicting the need for abdominal CT scanning in these patients. 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".