Applying the Ottawa Ankle Rules in a Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ankle and midfoot injuries constitute one of the most frequent reasons to visit the pediatric emergency department (ED). The aims of the study were (1) to determine the feasibility of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OARs) in a pediatric ED and its reliability to safely manage ankle and midfoot injuries and (2) to verify the impact in reducing the number of radiographs, healthcare costs, and time spent in the ED. METHODS: The prospective study enrolled 90 patients for the control group and 94 for the case group. For the control group, the standard of practice was registered. In the case group, before beginning enrolment, an instruction of how to apply the OARs were given to all clinicians. After that, OARs were applied according to patient complaints. A follow-up call was made for both groups. RESULTS: The mean age of the control group was 11.9 years (standard deviation, 3.267 years), whereas in the case group was 11.3 years (standard deviation, 3.533 years). Demographic and injury characteristics were similar in both groups. A significant statistical difference was verified in the number of radiographs (P = 0.001) with a reduction of 16.7% in the case group. Patients who did not perform radiography, in the case group, spent at least 1 hour less than the ones who did. The OARs have shown a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval, 39.76-100.00) and specificity of 23.33% (95% CI, 15.06-33.43) with a negative predictive value of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The OARs are an important clinical instrument with a high sensitivity and negative predictive value, which allows clinicians to avoid unnecessary exposure to radiation without missing clinically relevant fractures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".