MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING THE OTTAWA ANKLE RULES ON ANKLE RADIOGRAPHY REQUESTS IN A&E

2003· article· en· W4367336079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
SE Gwilym, N Aslam, WJ Ribbans, V Holloway

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleAuditRadiographyPhysical therapyAnkle injuryAcute injuryRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This audit was set up to quantify the effect of implementing the Ottawa ankle rules in a district general hospital that relies on both medical and nursing radiography requests. Data were collected prospectively on 207 patients who presented with an acute ankle injury between August 2001 and February 2002. The department's activity was recorded before and after a period of teaching on the Ottawa ankle rules. Before teaching, 71% of patients with an acute ankle injury were sent for radiography; teaching reduced this figure to 56% (p<0.05). Auditing the activity of our department enabled us to observe a significant decrease in the number of patients sent for ankle radiography following acute ankle injury. This correlates well with research in other settings. The difficulties of rationalising radiology investigations are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.438 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207