MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Applicability of CT examination decision rules in head injured children

2019· article· en· W3032751946 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhen Ren, Guilong Feng, Kai Fan, Weijing Wen, Rui Zhang, Yuanwei Fu, Weizong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueZhonghua jizhen yixue zazhi · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical prediction ruleInclusion and exclusion criteriaObservational studyHead injuryNeurosurgeryEmergency departmentReceiver operating characteristicPredictive valuePediatricsEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To explore the applicability of the three commonly used CT examination decision rules in Chinese head injured children. Methods This prospective observational study included 1 538 children and adolescents (aged <18 years), who were treated at the Emergency Department of First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University after head injuries. The three clinical decision rules include the Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE; UK); the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury, that was developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN; USA), and the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) rule. Diagnostic accuracy had been evaluated by using the rule-specific predictor variables to predict each rule-specific outcome measure in populations who met inclusion and exclusion criteria for each rule. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and ROC curve were referred to the diagnostic accuracy. Indicators were characterized by 95% CI. Results Of the 1 538 patients, CTs were obtained for 339 patients (22.04%). Forty-nine patients (3.19%) had positive CT results, 8 patients (0.52%) underwent neurosurgery, 2 patients (0.13%) died, and 1 patient (0.07%) may be missed. In this study, CHALICE was applied for 1 394 children (90.70%; 95% CI: 89.24%-92.15%), PECARN for 801 children (52.11%; 95% CI: 49.62%-54.61%), and CATCH for 325 patients (21.15%; 95% CI: 19.10%-23.19%). The validation sensitivities of CHALICE, PECARN, and CATCH rules were 92.6% (74.2%-98.7%), 100% (56.1%-100%), and 85.7% (42.0%-99.2%), respectively; the specificities were 78.1% (75.7%-80.2%), 48.0% (44.5%-51.5%) and 70.8% (65.4%-75.6%); positive predictive value were 7.7% (5.1%-11.3%), 0.9% (0.4%-1.9%) and 6.1% (2.5%-13.2%); and negative predictive value were 99.8% (99.2%-100%), 99.1% (98.1%-99.6%), and 99.6% (97.2%-100%), respectively. Conclusions The clinical decision rules of CHALICE, PECARN and CATCH have high sensitivities. The specificity of PECARN rule is lower than those of CHALICE and CATCH rules. The above three clinical decision rules can be used for the decision of CT examination in Chinese children with head injury in practice. Key words: Children; Head trauma; CT examination; Clinical decision rules; Applicability; CATCH; PECARN; CHALICE

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhonghua jizhen yixue zazhiSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207