The Effectiveness of Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma in Evaluating Blunt Abdominal Trauma With a Seatbelt Mark Sign
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Specific injury patterns have been recognized from seatbelt use including hollow viscous, mesenteric, and musculoskeletal injuries. We aimed to evaluate if focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) is a reliable screening tool for the initial evaluation of the blunt abdominal trauma patient with a seatbelt sign. Methods: A retrospective review of adult trauma patients with blunt abdominal trauma and a positive seatbelt sign were evaluated over a three-year period. Data collected included age, gender, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), presence or absence of abdominal tenderness, results of diagnostic studies, operative findings, missed injuries, and mortality. Results: A total of sixty-nine patients were evaluated. Fifty-eight ultrasound scans were interpreted as negative and 11 positive. Three of the 11 were taken immediately to the operating room. The remaining 8 underwent computerized tomography (CT) according to protocol and clinical management was altered in two. Sixteen patients with a negative ultrasound examination underwent CT. Our series revealed 11 true and no false positives, as well as 54 true and 4 false negatives. The sensitivity of utilizing FAST for detecting a clinically significant injury in this study is 73% with 100% specificity, a negative predictive value of 93%, positive predictive value of 100%, and accuracy of 94%. Conclusions: The use of FAST, not as a single diagnostic modality, but as a screening tool with selective use of CT, is a relatively reliable instrument for the initial evaluation of the blunt abdominal trauma patient with a seatbelt mark sign. J Curr Surg. 2014;4(1):17-22 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs207w
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it