Prise en charge des entorses de cheville : état des lieux des connaissances des médecins généralistes et des médecins urgentistes aveyronnais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude observationnelle transversale avait pour but de realiser un etat des lieux des connaissances des Medecins Generalistes et Urgentistes aveyronnais concernant la prise en charge des entorses de cheville. Ces derniers etaient interroges a l'aide d'un questionnaire portant sur deux situations cliniques d'entorse de cheville (une benigne et une grave). 222 Medecins Generalistes et 41 Medecins Urgentistes ont ete inclus. Au total, 142 Generalistes et 36 Urgentistes ont retourne le questionnaire. Les criteres d'Ottawa ne sont pas connus de pres de 54% des Medecins Generalistes, ils sont connus par 100% des Medecins Urgentistes mais 30% ne les appliquent pas. 40% des Generalistes et 37% des Urgentistes ne prescrivent pas de kinesitherapie en cas d'entorse benigne. La consultation de controle est sous-prescrite. Une remise a niveau des connaissances des Medecins Generalistes et Urgentistes aveyronnais semble necessaire notamment en termes de connaissance et d'application des criteres d'Ottawa, de prescription de kinesitherapie ou de consultation de controle, le tout afin d'etre en accord avec les dernieres recommandations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".