<b>Adherence to <scp>C</scp>anadian <scp>C</scp>‐<scp>S</scp>pine Rule in a regional hospital: A retrospective study of 406</b><b> cases</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cervical spine radiography may be over-utilised in an emergency department setting. The Canadian C-Spine Rule has been developed to reduce unnecessary radiography. Our aim was to retrospectively determine the proportion of cervical spine radiographs requested through the emergency department for trauma patients that were clinically indicated, according to the Canadian C-Spine Rule. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted at a regional centre in Northern Queensland, Australia. All cervical spine radiographs for trauma, performed at the Mackay Base Hospital from 1 January 2009 to the 31 December 2009, were reviewed. The relevant patient charts were audited for evidence of indications for radiography. RESULTS: Of 406 patients in the study, 155 patients (38%) (95% confidence interval 33.3%, 42.7%) had cervical spine imaging performed that was not indicated according to the Canadian C-Spine Rule. None of these patients had a significant cervical spine injury on radiography. CONCLUSION: Applying the Canadian C-Spine Rule would have safely reduced the incidence of cervical spine radiography by 38%. This would also reduce costs, patient morbidity and radiation exposure.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".