Predictors of positive chest radiography in non-traumatic chest pain in the emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine predictors associated with positive chest x-ray finding in patients presenting with non-traumatic chest pain in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Health records, including the final radiology reports of all patients who presented with non-traumatic chest pain and had a chest x-ray performed in an urban Canadian tertiary care ED over four consecutive months were reviewed. Demographic and clinical variables were also extracted. Chest x-ray findings were categorized as normal (either normal or no significant change from previous x-rays) or abnormal. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between various predictors and chest x-ray finding (positive/negative). RESULTS: The 330 study patients had the following characteristics: mean age 58±20 years; female 41% (n=134). Patients' chief complaints were only chest pain 75% (n=248), chest pain with shortness of breath 12% (n=41), chest pain with palpitation 4% (n=14), chest pain with other complaints 9% (n=28). Chest x-rays were reported as normal or no acute changes in 81% (n=266) of patients, and abnormal in 19% (n=64) of patients. The most common abnormal chest x-ray diagnoses were congestive heart failure (n=28; 8%) and pneumonia (n=17; 5%). Those with abnormal chest x-ray findings were significantly older (71 versus 55 years; p<0.001), had chest pain with shortness of breath (36% versus 11%; p<0.001), had significant past medical history (39% versus 14%; p<0.001), and were also tachypnoic (31% versus 12%; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: This study found that patients with non-traumatic chest pain are likely to have a normal chest x-ray if they were young, not tachypnoeic or short of breath, and had no significant past medical history. A larger study is required to confirm these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".