Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules for Acute Foot and Ankle Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The original and modified Ottawa Ankle Rules (OARs) were developed as clinical decision rules for use in emergency departments. However, the OARs have not been evaluated as an acute clinical evaluation tool. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measures of diagnostic accuracy of the OARs in the acute setting. METHODS: The OARs were applied to all appropriate ankle injuries at 2 colleges (athletics and club sports) and 21 high schools. The outcomes of OARs, diagnosis, and decision for referral were collected by the athletic trainers (ATs) at each of the locations. Contingency tables were created for evaluations completed within 1 h for which radiographs were obtained. From these data the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: The OARs met the criteria for radiographs in 100 of the 124 cases, of which 38 were actually referred for imaging. Based on radiographic findings in an acute setting, the OARs (n = 38) had a high sensitivity (.88) and are good predictors to rule out the presence of a fracture. Low specificity (0.00) results led to a high number of false positives and low positive predictive values (.18). CONCLUSION: When applied during the first hour after injury the OARs significantly overestimate the need for radiographs. However, a negative finding rules out the need to obtain radiographs. It appears the AT's decision making based on the totality of the examination findings is the best filter in determining referral for radiographs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".