MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399156707 · doi:10.1177/08465371241254966

CETARS/CAR Practice Guideline on Imaging the Pregnant Trauma Patient

2024· article· en· W4399156707 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sadia Raheez Qamar, Courtney R. Green, Hournaz Ghandehari, Signy Holmes, Sean Hurley, Zonah Khumalo, Mohammed F. Mohammed, Markus Ziesmann, Venu Jain, Rajiv Thavanathan, Ferco H. Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityHealth Sciences CentreMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaMcGill University Health CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineSubspecialtyAnxietyMagnetic resonance imagingMedical emergencyRadiologyFamily medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging of pregnant patients who sustained trauma often causes fear and confusion among patients, their families, and health care professionals regarding the potential for detrimental effects from radiation exposure to the fetus. Unnecessary delays or potentially harmful avoidance of the justified imaging studies may result from this understandable anxiety. This guideline was developed by the Canadian Emergency, Trauma and Acute Care Radiology Society (CETARS) and the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Working Group on Imaging the Pregnant Trauma Patient, informed by a literature review as well as multidisciplinary expert panel opinions and discussions. The working group included academic subspecialty radiologists, a trauma team leader, an emergency physician, and an obstetriciangynaecologist/maternal fetal medicine specialist, who were brought together to provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for the imaging of pregnant trauma patients, including patient safety aspects (eg, radiation and contrast concerns) and counselling, initial imaging in maternal trauma, specific considerations for the use of fluoroscopy, angiography, and magnetic resonance imaging. The guideline strives to achieve clarity and prevent added anxiety in an already stressful situation of injury to a pregnant patient, who should not be imaged differently.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207