Los criterios de Ottawa para tobillo: valoración en un servicio de urgencias en México
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las lesiones de tobillo son una causa frecuente de consulta en el departamento de emergencias. El objetivo del presente estudio es valorar el uso de los criterios de Ottawa para tobillo en nuestro país, para así reducir costes y tiempo de espera en la sala de urgencias Se aplicaron los criterios de Ottawa en pacientes de 0 a 18 años de edad con lesiones de tobillo. La medida principal fue la radiografía y/o la evolución clínica a través de contacto telefónico. La presencia de fractura significativa mediante uno de éstos, era el resultado adverso a evaluar Se incluyeron 111 pacientes con edades de 3 a 18 años, 15 % de los cuales presentaron fracturas de tobillo. La sensibilidad y el valor predictivo negativo de los criterios de tobillo de Ottawa fueron del 100 %. Aplicarlos hubiese disminuido un 5,4 % la realización de radiografías Se ratifica la sensibilidad y aplicabilidad de los criterios de Ottawa para tobillo en niños en Hispanoamérica, aunque con menor ahorro en el uso de radiografías que en otros países Pediatric ankle injuries are a common complaint in the emergency setting. The objective of this study was to prospectively validate the Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) in children in Mexico. This could reduce costs and waiting times in the emergency room The authors applied the OAR to all patients aged 0 to 18 years old with an acute ankle injury. The main outcome measure was radiograph and/or clinical outcome determined through telephone contact. The presence of fracture was considered an adverse outcome One hundred and eleven patients, aged 3–18 years, were enrolled. The prevalence of fractures was 15 %. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of the OAR were 100 %. Use of the OAR would have reduced the radiography rate by 5.4 % The sensitivity and applicability of the OAR in children in Latin-America are confirmed, although reduction in the use of radiography is lower than in other countries
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".