Adverse Events from Emergency Physician Pediatric Extremity Radiograph Interpretations: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We determined how often emergency physician pediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) radiograph interpretations were discordant to that of a radiologist and led to an adverse event (AE). We also established the variables independently associated with this outcome. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted in an urban, tertiary care children's emergency department (ED). We enrolled children who presented to an ED with an extremity injury and received radiographs. ED physicians documented their radiograph interpretation, which was compared to a radiology reference standard. Patients received telephone follow-up and had institutional medical records reviewed in 3 weeks. An AE occurred if there were clinical sequelae and/or repeat health care visits due to a delay in correct radiograph interpretation. RESULTS: We enrolled 2,302 children (mean [±SD] age = 9.0 [4.4] years; 1,288 (56.0%) male]. Of these, 180 (7.8%; 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 9.0) ED physician discordant interpretations resulted in an AE. Specifically, there were no negative clinical outcomes; however, relative to cases diagnosed correctly at the index ED, patients whose fracture was not initially identified encountered 77.2% more subsequent ED visits, while those falsely diagnosed with a fracture experienced 41.5% additional orthopedic clinic visits. Odds of an ED discrepant interpretation was significantly higher if a physician's pretest probability of a fracture was ≤ 20% versus> 20% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.6), patient's pain score was ≤ 2 versus> 2 (aOR = 1.6), and injury was located in a joint versus other location (aOR = 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physician discordant pediatric MSK radiograph interpretations that resulted in an AE occurred with regular frequency in a pediatric ED setting. AEs were primarily an increase in subsequent health care visits. Importantly, a low clinical suspicion for a fracture or injury located in the joint were risk factors for ED physician discordant interpretations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".