MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102031739 · doi:10.3138/ptc.58.3.196

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Decision-Making: Exploring the Role of Pretest Probability in Patients with Rotator Cuff Pathology

2006· article· en· W2102031739 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Razmjou, Ted Haines, Richard Holtby

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffMedicineTest (biology)Pre- and post-test probabilityMagnetic resonance imagingPhysical therapyMedical physicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to describe the indicators of diagnostic validity and to demonstrate the informative value of the pretest probability of two tests, the supraspinatus test and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), on diagnosis and management by using three case scenarios of rotator cuff pathology as examples. Summary of Key Points: Patients' attributes and validity indices of clinical tests are important to consider in reaching an optimal diagnosis. We compared the impact of the supraspinatus (Jobe) test with MRI of the shoulder in three fictional cases with different severity of rotator cuff pathology. The methodological approach of clinical decision-making at the patient level is discussed. Conclusion and Recommendations: Clinicians are required to make decisions based on incomplete data and imperfect clinical tests with falsenegative and false-positive results. Estimating the pretest probability of pathology is often an educated guess. However, without an explicit estimate of the pretest probability of suspected pathology, a test result has no clearly defined informative value. The Bayesian approach provides a logically correct way to arrive at a specific post-test probability.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207