[Fewer x-rays while maintaining quality of clinical care using clinical protocols for physical diagnosis of ankle injuries].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether it is possible to decrease the number of X-rays in acute ankle injury while keeping the health care constant, using a scoring system. DESIGN: Prospective. METHOD: Patients presenting in the emergency department of the University Hospital Utrecht (AZU), the Netherlands, over a one-year period of time with acute ankle injuries were subjected to a thorough physical examination based on a scoring system developed at Leiden University Hospital. The score was calculated and X-ray examination was indicated when this score was > or = 8 points. Radiological investigation or telephone interviews six weeks after injury achieved verification of the clinically relevant ankle fractures. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated from every possible cut-off point and drawn in a 'receiver operating characteristics' (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Of the 514 patients included 81 patients had a score of 8 or higher and 24 of them had a clinically relevant fracture. In 34 patients an ankle X-ray was made although their score was < 8 points. The positive and negative predictive values of the system were 30% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 20-41) and 99% (95% CI: 97-100) respectively. The score yielded an area under the ROC curve of 91% (95% CI: 84-98). A cut-off point of 8 led to a reduction of X-rays by 60% (using the 'Ottawa ankle rules' the decrease in this population would have been 28%). On the other hand, 5 clinically relevant fractures were missed. CONCLUSION: Radiological examination in patients wit acute ankle complaints was reduced while health care remained almost constant. In the AZU, a decision was made for a major reduction in X-rays while accepting that some fractures would be missed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".