Interpretation of computed tomography of the cervical spine by non‐radiologists: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background After trauma, clearance of the cervical spine refers to the exclusion of underlying serious injuries. Accurate assessment of computed tomography (CT) is commonly required prior to clearance of the cervical spine. Delays to clearance can lead to prolonged immobilization with associated patient discomfort and adverse effects. This systematic review aimed to determine performance of non‐radiologists to evaluate cervical spine CT. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library with sources of grey literature and reference lists of selected articles were appraised from inception to April 2021. We included manuscripts that reported discordance in CT cervical spine interpretation between non‐radiologists and radiologists. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess quality of included studies and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results There were 43 studies identified for eligibility and 4 manuscripts included in the final analysis. There were two studies that reported on the performance of radiology residents, one study on the performance of surgical residents and one on emergency physicians. The pooled discordance was 0.25 (95%CI 0.21–0.28) but was lower for radiology residents (range 0.007–0.05). There was significant statistical heterogeneity ( I 2 = 99.6%, P < 0.001) among studies. Conclusion There is a paucity of evidence documenting the ability of non‐radiologists in accurately interpreting CT of the cervical spine. A number of discordant findings suggest that studies with larger sample sizes are indicated to accurately ascertain the ability of non‐radiologists in this area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".