Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) are criteria for predicting ankle fractures in adults allowing for insignificant fractures, defined as small avulsion fractures. Because the clinical significance of avulsion fractures and Salter-Harris type I fractures in children is unclear, we sought to prospectively evaluate the use of the OAR in children and to determine whether different criteria should be used for predicting ankle fractures in children. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients younger than 18 years presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) with an acute nonpenetrating ankle injury were eligible for study participation. Information on 22 clinical variables was recorded on a standardized data sheet. The OAR were included but not specifically identified on the data sheets. A standard ankle radiographic series was obtained on all subjects. All fractures were considered to be significant. Follow-up phone calls were performed to assess final diagnosis and outcome. Sensitivity and specificity of OAR and other potential criteria for predicting ankle fractures in children were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients with ankle injuries were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 12.6 years. Forty fractures (21%) were identified. The sensitivity of OAR was 83% (95% CI, 65-94%), specificity was 50% (95% CI, 41-59%), positive predictive value was 28%, and negative predictive value was 93%. Three independent factors were significantly associated with ankle fractures: inability to walk immediately after the event, inability to bear weight for four steps in the ED, and tender deltoid ligament. If one or more of these factors were present, sensitivity for predicting ankle fractures was 93% (95% CI, 78-99%), specificity was 27% (95% CI, 20-36%), positive predictive value was 23%, and negative predictive value was 95%. CONCLUSION: The OAR cannot be applied to children with the same sensitivity as adults.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".