MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of the Canadian C-Spine rule and nexus low criteria and results of cervical spine radiography in emergency condition

2018· article· en· W2809636195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Ngatchou, Jeanne Beirnaert, Daniel Lemogoum, Cyril Bouland, Pierre Youatou, Ahmed Sabry Ramadan, Régis Sontou, Maimouna Bol Alima, Alain Plumaker, Virginie Guimfacq, Claude Bika, Pierre Mols

Bibliographic record

VenuePan African Medical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNexus (standard)Cervical spineRadiographyEmergency departmentBlunt traumaCervical spine injuryMedical emergencyRadiologySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian C Spine Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (Nexus) low criteria are well accepted as guide to help physician in case of cervical blunt trauma. METHODS: We aimed to evaluate retrospectively the application of these recommendations in our emergency department. Secondly we analyzed the quality of cervical spine radiography (CSR) in an emergency setting. RESULTS: 281 patients with cervical blunt trauma were analyzed retrospectively. The CCR and the NEXUS rules were respected in 91.2% and 96.8% of cases respectively. No lesions were found in 96.4% of patient. A lesion was present in 1.1% of patient and suspected in 2.5% of patient. The quality of CSR was adequate in only 37.7% of patient. The poor quality of CSR was due either to the lack of C7 vertebrae visualization in 64.6% or other lower vertebrae in 28%. Other causes included the absence of open mouth view (8%), the absence C1 vertebrae visualization (3.4%), artifact in 2.3% and the absence of lateral view in 0.6% of patient. CONCLUSION: CCR and NEXUS are widely used in our emergency department. The high rate of inadequate CSR reinforces the debate about it's utility in emergency condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePan African Medical JournalSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207