Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Ankle Injuries in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine whether point-of-care ultrasound (US) can decrease x-rays in children with ankle injuries. Secondary objectives were to determine the test performance characteristics for ankle US, analyze diagnostic errors, and compare US with the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR). METHODS: This was a prospective study of children younger than 21 years presenting to an emergency department with an ankle injury requiring x-rays. Pediatric emergency medicine physicians received a 1-hour training session, performed ankle US with a standardized scanning protocol of the distal tibia and fibula, and described the US as positive, negative, or equivocal for fracture. Ankle x-ray interpretation by a radiologist was the reference standard for fracture. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients with a mean age of 13.5 (±4.0) years were enrolled. Nine patients (7.5%) had an ankle fracture on x-ray, and 56 patients (47%) had open physes. Ankle US would reduce x-rays by 81 (67.5%), missing 2 intra-articular, nondisplaced, tibial fractures in patients with open physes. Ankle US had a sensitivity of 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-97%), specificity of 71% (95% CI, 62%-79%), likelihood ratio for a positive test of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.7-4.3), and likelihood ratio for a negative test of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.09-1.07). The OAR would reduce x-rays by 21 (17.5%), missing one fracture. Ultrasound with OAR would reduce x-rays by 20 (17%) with no missed fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care US has the potential to reduce x-rays for children with ankle injuries; however, nondisplaced, intra-articular tibial fractures may be missed. Ultrasound with OAR may reduce radiographs without missed fractures in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".