MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093472771 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e31818a5d1a

Could Full-body Digital X-ray (LODOX-Statscan) Screening in Trauma Challenge Conventional Radiography?

2009· article· en· W2093472771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simone Deyle, Andreas Wagner, Lorin M. Benneker, Stefan Eggli, Harald Bonél, Heinz Zimmermann, Aris Exadaktylos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyPelvisDigital radiographyRadiologyGold standard (test)Nuclear medicineBlunt traumaComputed tomographicComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: ATLS Guidelines recommend single plain radiography of the chest and pelvis as part of the primary survey. Such isolated radiographs, usually obtained by bedside machines, can result in limited, low-quality studies that can adversely affect management. A new digital, low-radiation imaging device, the "Lodox Statscan" (LS), provides full-body anterior and lateral views based on enhanced linear slot-scanning technology in just over 5 minutes. We have the first LS in Europe at our facility. The aim of this study was to compare LS with computed tomographic (CT) scanning, as the gold standard, to determine the sensitivity of LS investigation in detecting injuries to the chest, thoracolumbar spine, and pelvis from our own experience, and to compare our findings with those of conventional radiography in the literature. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart analysis of 245 patients with multiple injuries examined by full-body LS imaging and CT scans between October 1, 2006 and October 1, 2007 at our facility. Patients under the age of 16 years were not included. LS and CT images of chest injuries, injuries to the thoracolumbar spine, and fractures of the pelvis were compared. At our facility, we no longer perform plain radiography for C-spine and head injury, but perform CT scans according to the Canadian rules. Findings with LS were also compared with those reported for conventional radiography in the literature. RESULTS: Compared with CT scanning, sensitivity and specificity of full-body digital X-ray of blunt chest trauma were 57% and 100%, respectively, thoracic spinal injury 43% and 100%, lumbar spine lesions 74% and 100%, and pelvic injury 72% and 99%. The positive and negative predictive value of LS imaging were 99% and 90% for blunt chest trauma, 100% and 93% for overall spinal injuries, and 90% and 97% for pelvic injuries. CONCLUSION: Full-body radiography with LS visualizes skeletal, chest, and pelvic pathologies "all-in-one." This low-radiation technology detected chest, thoracolumbar spine, and pelvic injuries with an overall sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 99%. Compared with figures in the literature, LS was more accurate than conventional X-rays. A prospective randomized study is warranted to support these data.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.321
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207