ANKLE AND MIDFOOT FRACTURES;
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Ottawa rule in ankle andmidfoot fracture keeping x-ray as gold standard. Study Design: Descriptive study. Setting:Department of Orthopedics, Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar. Period: June 2014 to May 2016.Materials and Methods: Through a Cross Sectional Study Design, a total of 175 patientspresenting with suspicion of ankle/mid foot fracture were selected in a consecutive mannerfrom the OPD and subjected to detection of fracture through Ottawa Ankle Rule followed byX-ray to confirm the diagnosis of fracture. Results: The mean age group of patients in ourstudy was 36.1+10.4 years. There were 85.7% males and 14.3% were females. The sensitivityanalysis shows OAR has a sensitivity of 81.2% and specificity 61.9%., positive predictive valueof the OAR is 79.1% and negative predictive value is 65.0% keeping X-ray as a gold standard.Conclusion: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the OAR lies within an acceptable rangein our local population however, we still recommend further research work over it beforerecommendations as a routine screening test for the fracture of ankle or mid foot.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".