MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281653394 · doi:10.1136/emermed-2022-rcem.33

1074 Ottawa Ankle rules cannot be safely used to rule out ankle fractures in patients who present ≥10 days post-injury

2022· article· en· W4281653394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard A. Anderson, Amy Green, Rhianna Davies, Lindsey Dew, Mark Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleRadiographyEmergency departmentMedical recordSurgeryPresentation (obstetrics)Physical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims/Objectives/Background The Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) have been validated as a highly sensitive tool to rule out ankle fractures and reduce need for radiography. However, datasets validating OAR to date have excluded patients presenting ≥10 days post-injury and there is a need to ascertain if OAR can be safely used to rule out ankle fractures in this population. Methods/Design Patients presenting with ankle injuries to an emergency department (ED) in England between June 2015 and November 2020 were identified retrospectively through a clinical-coding search. Patient records were used to confirm the number of days between injury and presentation; those who presented ≥10 days post-injury were included for further analysis. Data was collected from ED documentation including region of pain, bony tenderness and weight-bearing status. OAR were used to categorise patients as ‘Ottawa-positive’, ‘Ottawa-negative’ or insufficient documentation. It was recorded whether the patient underwent radiography and whether the formal radiograph report confirmed a clinically-significant fracture. Patients who didn’t undergo radiography and didn’t subsequently re-present were deemed not to have a fracture. Data collected for each patient was checked and agreed by two authors. Results/Conclusions 6782 patients presented with ankle injuries, of which 126 patients presented ≥10 days post-injury. Of these 126 patients, 9 were Ottawa-positive, 90 were Ottawa-negative and 27 patients had insufficient documentation. 85 patients underwent radiography and 19 were found to have clinically-significant fractures. Of these fracture patients, 4 were Ottawa-positive and 15 were Ottawa-negative. Within our dataset, OAR demonstrated a sensitivity of 21.05%, specificity 93.75%, PPV 44.40% and NPV 83.30%. Using Fishers exact test, p=0.0658. OAR demonstrate poor sensitivity and cannot be safely used to rule out ankle fractures in patients who present ≥10 days post-injury. However, due to the p-value and low power there may be a risk of type 2 error and a larger study may prove otherwise.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207