Prospective Validation of the <i>Calgary Kids’ Hand Rule</i> : A Clinical Prediction Rule for Pediatric Hand Fracture Triage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pediatric hand fractures are common and routinely referred to surgeons, yet most heal well without surgical intervention. This trend inspired the development of the Calgary Kids’ Hand Rule (CKHR), a clinical prediction rule designed to predict “complex” fractures that require surgical referral. The CKHR was adapted into a checklist whereby the presence of any 1 of 6 clinically or radiologically identifiable fracture characteristics predicts a complex fracture. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the CKHR in a prospective sample of children with hand fractures. Methods: Physicians were asked to complete the CKHR checklist when referring pediatric patients (< 18 years) to hand surgeons at a Canadian pediatric hospital (April 2019-September 2020). Completed checklists represented predicted outcomes and were compared to observed outcomes (determined via chart review). Predictive accuracy (primary outcome) was evaluated based on sensitivity and specificity. Secondary outcomes were interrater reliability between referring physicians and surgeons, and survey assessment of CKHR user satisfaction. Results: In total 365 fractures were included, with only 16 requiring surgical intervention. Overall performance of the CKHR was good with 84% sensitivity and 71% specificity. Percent agreement between referring physicians and surgeons ranged from 84.1% to 96.3% on individual predictors, with 78.1% agreement on the presence of any predictors. Survey results showed general user satisfaction but also identified areas for improvement. Conclusion: This study posits the CKHR as an accurate and clinically useful prediction rule and highlights the importance of education for its effective use and eventual scale and spread.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".