Appropriateness of CT of the Chest, Abdomen, and Pelvis in Motorized Blunt Force Trauma Patients Without Signs of Significant Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency of clinically significant injuries detected on CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in adult patients involved in motorized blunt force trauma with normal clinical examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of patients presenting with a triage history of motorized blunt force trauma who underwent CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis at the time of presentation was performed. Hemodynamically stable adult patients without abnormal physical examination findings to suggest injury of the trunk (e.g., tenderness, deformity, or bruising over the chest, abdomen, or pelvis) were included in the study. The formal report of the CT scan was reviewed and all acute injuries were recorded. Admission and discharge dates and surgical interventions were also recorded. RESULTS: Records for 542 patients were reviewed; 108 patients (74 men and 34 women; median age, 36 years) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eleven of the 108 patients (10%; 95% CI, 4.4-15.6%) had acute injuries detected on CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. None of the injuries required direct medical intervention. Alcohol intoxication or distracting injuries were present in eight of these patients. The median time in hospital, from emergency department presentation to discharge, was 4.4 days (interquartile range, 2.5-8.5 days) for patients who were admitted and 6.7 hours (interquartile range, 4.8-10.3 hours) for those who were discharged. CONCLUSION: The clinical yield of performing CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in motorized blunt trauma patients with normal clinical examinations in our study was minimal.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".