[Usefulness of Ottawa rules for acute injuries of ankle and foot].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the usefulness of the rules of Ottawa in the diagnosis of foot and ankle injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To design a diagnostic test. SITE: Emergency room at Magdalena de las Salinas Trauma Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with injuries of foot and ankle taken care in January 2003. SAMPLING: Non-probabilistic by convenience. INTERVENTIONS: Patients who went for attention due to foot and ankle injuries without evident deformity were asked to went through X-rays, and they were assessed by means of the following criteria: a) pain or increase in sensitivity of the later edge and end of lateral and medial malleolus, in the 6 cm distal; b) pain or increase in the sensitivity of the navicular bone or base of the fifth metatarsal, and, c) inability to support their weight immediately after the injury and during the physical exploration. The presence of one or more criteria are indicative of X-rays. MEASUREMENTS: sensitivity, specificity, predictive values (PV), and probability rates (PR). RESULTS: 50 ankles were studied, correlating the clinical test with the X-rays (gold standard). The clinical test showed a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 60%, PVP of 30%, PVN of 100%, RFP of 40%, and, RFN of 0, PR/RPP of 3, PR/RPN of 0. CONCLUSIONS: In the injuries of ankle, when the Ottawa rules are negative, the X-rays series are not indicated, since the probability of not having a fracture can be of 100%. When it has one or more criteria, if we asked for the X-rays, a third part of the patients can have fracture with a rate of false positives of 40%. Apparently, in ankle and foot injuries, certain studies are not essential without having any deterioration of the quality medical care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".