Applicability of Ottawa ankle rules in predicting the need for radiography in ankle and midfoot injuries in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the applicability of Ottawa Ankle Rules in predicting the need for the radiography in ankle and midfoot injuries in Rwanda.Design: This was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study carried over a 6 month duration, from May 2018 to October 2018.Setting: University Teaching Hospital of Kigali (UTH-Kigali), Rwanda Military Hospital (RMH) and King Faisal Hospital, Kigali, Rwanda (KFH-K).Patients and methods: Adult patients presenting with acute ankle and midfoot injuries at the emergencies of three referral hospitals in Kigali. Patients were examined using OARs and underwent radiography to rule out the presence or absence of the fracture.Results: A total of 196 patients from three referral hospitals in Kigali were enrolled in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of the OARs were 97.9% and 35.8% respectively.Conclusion: In this study, Ottawa Ankle Rules have high sensitivity and low specificity; however, it showed high false positive values due to high sensitivity of the test. When properly applied, Ottawa Ankle Rules can decrease the number of unnecessary ankle or midfoot radiographs and limiting the waiting time in acute settings in Rwanda. Key words: Ottawa ankle rules, Radiography, Applicability, Validation
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".