MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318633942 · doi:10.1097/jtn.0b013e318249b79d

Management of Incidental Findings in the Trauma Patient

2012· article· en· W2318633942 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Biegler, P McBeth, Corina Tiruta, Chad G. Ball, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Trauma Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNurse practitionersComputed tomographicMedicineProspective cohort studyEmergency medicineFamily medicineMedical emergencyComputed tomographySurgeryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic scanning and tertiary surveys have resulted in an increase of incidental findings (IFs) unrelated to the trauma. The goals were to (1) characterize the frequency and nature of IFs and (2) explore their management by a trauma nurse practitioner. METHODS: A prospective log of IFs and follow-up details was maintained by a trauma nurse practitioner. Supplemental data were obtained through hospital databases. RESULTS: A total of 404 trauma patients were screened for IFs over a 6-month period, and 68% had IFs of varying severity. CONCLUSION: IFs are frequent in trauma. Appropriate management and follow-up is a major commitment that can be well managed by a trauma nurse practitioner.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Trauma NursingSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207