The role of Ottawa ankle rules in geriatric emergency department visits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankle injuries are a common reason for visits to the emergency department (ED). An effective diagnosis and treatment process is crucial for the swift recovery of patients and for alleviating congestion in EDs. This study aims to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) in geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Between February 2022 and November 2022, 160 patients aged 65 and older (118 women, 42 men) who presented to the ED with isolated ankle injuries were included in the study. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the OAR. RESULTS: The study found fractures in 37.5% of patients. The sensitivity of the OAR was 98.33%, the specificity was 86%, the negative predictive value was 98.85%, and the positive predictive value was 80.82%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the OAR is highly sensitive in the geriatric population but shows some limitations in terms of specificity and positive predictive value. These results support the effectiveness of using the OAR in evaluating ankle injuries in the geriatric population but also highlight the need for cautious application due to the potential for false-positive outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".