Reliability of ‘Ottawa Ankle Rules’ in Acute Ankle and Midfoot Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTIONThe Ottawa ankle rules (OARs) are clinical decision guidelines used to identify whether patients with ankle injuries need to undergo radiography. The OARs have been proven that their application reduces unnecessary radiography. MATERIAL & METHODSThis prospective study was conducted at Sumeru City Hospital, Lalitpur in the Department of Emergency and Outpatient Department of Orthopaedics. Thirty-six patients were included in the study. Twenty-five patients were in ankle group and 11 patients were in midfoot group. All patients were sent for X-rays after evaluating them according to OARs. RESULTS Among 36 cases, 8 clinically significant fractures were found. Sensitivity of OARs for detecting fractures was 100 % for both ankle and midfoot group. Specificity of OARs for detecting fractures were 47.36 % for ankle group and 66.67 % for midfoot group. Negative predictive value of OARs was 100 %. CONCLUSIONOARs are very accurate and highly sensitive tools for detecting fractures in acute ankle and midfoot injuries. Implementation of these rules would lead to significant reduction in the number of radiographs and thereby reduce the cost of the treatment, radiation exposure and waiting time of patients at hospital.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".