The Canadian C-Spine Rule more accurately identified cervical-spine injury in trauma than the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DiagnosisJuly 1, 2004The Canadian C-Spine Rule more accurately identified cervical-spine injury in trauma than the NEXUS Low-Risk CriteriaPeter Wyer, MDPeter Wyer, MDNew York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA (P.W.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2004-141-1-024 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationStiell IG, Clement CM, McKnight RD, et al. The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2510-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14695411Clinical Impact RatingsEmergency Med: GIM/FP/GP: Hospitalists: Neurology: References1 Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, et al.. The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA. 2001;286:1841-8. [PMID: 11597285] Google Scholar2 Lerner EB, Moscati R. Duration of patient immobilization in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18:28-30. [PMID: 10674527] Google Scholar3 Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, Todd KH, Zucker MI. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:94-9. [PMID: 10891516] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA (P.W.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails July 1, 2004Volume 141, Issue 1Page: 24KeywordsAlgorithmsComaDiagnostic radiologyHead injuryHospitalistsNeurologyParalysisSpecificityVital signs ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: July 1, 2004 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2004 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".