MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287214251 · doi:10.1097/mej.0000000000000327

The diagnostic accuracy of the HITSNS prehospital triage rule for identifying patients with significant traumatic brain injury

2015· article· en· W2287214251 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Fuller, Graham McClelland, Thomas Lawrence, Fiona Lecky

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsTriageTraumatic brain injuryMedicineMedical emergencyEmergency medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversion of suspected traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients to trauma centres may improve outcomes by expediting access to specialist neurosurgical care. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the Head Injury Straight to Neurosurgery (HITSNS) triage rule for identifying patients with significant TBI. A diagnostic cohort study was performed using data from the HITSNS trial, the Trauma Audit and Research Network registry and the North East Ambulance service database. Sensitivity and specificity of the HITSNS triage rule were calculated against a reference standard of significant TBI, defined by a cranial Abbreviated Injury Scale score of at least 3 or by the performance of a neurosurgical procedure. A total of 3628 patients were included in the complete case analyses. The HITSNS triage tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 28.3% (95% confidence interval 21.8-35.4) and a specificity of 94.4% (95% confidence interval 93.6-95.2). The low sensitivity of the HITSNS triage rule suggests that a considerable proportion of patients with significant TBI may not be triaged directly to trauma centres, and further research is needed to improve the accuracy of bypass protocols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207