MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175578068

Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules at a Tertiary Teaching Hospital

2015· article· en· W2175578068 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
MK Tharao, PK Oroko, Ali Abdulkarim, H. Saïdi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of African Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleMedicineAccident and emergencyRadiographyOrthopedic surgeryEmergency departmentHealth carePredictive valueIncidence (geometry)Physical therapyEmergency medicineMedical emergencySurgeryNursingInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ankle joint and foot injuries are among the most common injuries seen at the accident and emergency (A&E) department of any hospital. Radiographs are ordered in over 95% of cases yet the prevalence of fractures is in the range of 15-20%. The Ottawa ankle rules have been designed to reduce the need for radiographs in these patients and associated healthcare costs. This study aimed to validate the Ottawa ankle rules within our local setting and assess the impact of introduction of the rules. Methods: This was a cross sectional study at the Aga Khan University Hospital A&E department and the orthopedic outpatient clinics. Consenting patients with ankle trauma were examined based on the criteria set out in the Ottawa rules and subsequently sent for radiographs to confirm the presence or absence of a fracture. Results: The study recruited 175 patients over a six month period. There were 27 fractures with an incidence of 15%. The decision rule had a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 57.4%. The negative predictive value was 98.8%. Application of these rules showed a potential of reducing the requested radiographs by 46%. Conclusion: The results have shown that implementation of the rules will result in significant savings in cost, time and unnecessary radiation exposure. Keywords: Ottawa Ankle Rules, Radiographs, Predictive Value, Healthcare Costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of African SurgerySame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207