Evaluation of Chest CT scan as a screening and diagnostic tool in trauma patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a cross-sectional study in southern Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The lack of enough medical evidence about COVID-19 regarding optimal prevention, diagnosis, and treatment contributes negatively to the rapid increase in the number of cases globally. A chest computerized tomography (CT) scan has been introduced as the most sensitive diagnostic method. Therefore, this research aimed to examine and evaluate the chest CT scan as a screening measure of COVID-19 in trauma patients. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Rajaee Hospital in Shiraz from February to May 2020. All patients underwent unenhanced CT with a 16-slice CT scanner. The CT-scans were evaluated in a blinded manner and main CT scan features were described and classified into four groups according to RSNA recommendation. Subsequently, the first two RSNA categories with the highest probability of COVID pneumonia (i.e. typical and indeterminate) were merged into the “positive CT scan group” and those with radiologic features with the least probability of COVID pneumonia into “negative CT scan group”. Results: Chest CT scan had a sensitivity (68%), specificity (56%), positive predictive value (34.8%), negative predictive value (83.7%), and accuracy (59.3%) in detecting COVID-19 among trauma patients. Also, for the diagnosis of COVID-19 by CT scan in asymptomatic individuals a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 66.7% and a negative predictive value of 100% was obtained. Conclusion: Findings of the study indicated that the CT scan's sensitivity and specificity is less effective in diagnosing trauma patients with COVID-19 in comparison to non-traumatic people.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".