Validation of Ottawa ankle rules protocol in Greek athletes: study in the emergency departments of a district general hospital and a sports injuries clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the Ottawa ankle rules protocol for predicting ankle and midfoot fractures in Greek athletes. METHOD: A prospective survey in the emergency departments of a district general hospital and a sports injury clinic in Greece over nine months. A clinical evaluation was made of 122 patients with acute ankle and/or midfoot injury, and then radiographs were taken. RESULTS: Nine ankle and eight midfoot fractures were detected. The sensitivity of the Ottawa ankle rules protocol in predicting fractures in both the malleolar and midfoot zones was 100%. The negative predictive value for each of these areas was also 1.0. Specificity was estimated to be 0.3 for ankle fractures and 0.4 for midfoot fractures. Positive predictive values were 0.16 and 0.28 respectively. A possible reduction of up to 28.7% was found in the need for radiography. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Ottawa ankle rules protocol in evaluating injured Greek athletes resulted in 100% sensitivity when performed by orthopaedic residents or sports medicine doctors, and had the potential to reduce the use of radiography.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".