Identifying Wrist Fracture Patients with High Accuracy by Automatic Categorization of X-ray Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors performed this study to determine the accuracy of several text classification methods to categorize wrist x-ray reports. We randomly sampled 751 textual wrist x-ray reports. Two expert reviewers rated the presence (n = 301) or absence (n = 450) of an acute fracture of wrist. We developed two information retrieval (IR) text classification methods and a machine learning method using a support vector machine (TC-1). In cross-validation on the derivation set (n = 493), TC-1 outperformed the two IR based methods and six benchmark classifiers, including Naive Bayes and a Neural Network. In the validation set (n = 258), TC-1 demonstrated consistent performance with 93.8% accuracy; 95.5% sensitivity; 92.9% specificity; and 87.5% positive predictive value. TC-1 was easy to implement and superior in performance to the other classification methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".