MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A 20-year perspective on the Ottawa Ankle Rules

2021· article· en· W3177128615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence Herman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAPA · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleFoot (prosody)MedicineAnkle injuryRadiographyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Ottawa Ankle Rules, finalized in 1995, are a clinical decision directive for the use of radiographs in patients with traumatic ankle and foot injuries. The researchers who developed the rules defined clinically insignificant ankle fractures as distal fibular or malleolar chip fractures of 3 mm or less. They concluded that at least one-third of all ankle and foot radiographs could be eliminated by using their rules, which have since been adopted as the standard of care in EDs. This article explores whether, after more than 20 years in use, the Ottawa Ankle Rules are still valid, and whether they should continue to be used or be replaced by a superior protocol.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.027
Scholarly communication0.0220.017
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.0380.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAPASame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207