Relationship of Mechanism of Injury to Asymptomatic Cervical Spine Fractures in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>ABSTRACT</h3> The Canadian Cervical Spine Rule, a clinical decision-making tool for patients post-trauma is often interpreted as recommending cervical spine computed tomography in patients ≥ 65 years old, who sustain a dangerous mechanism of injury, and/or have extremity paresthesias. We retrospectively reviewed 6 years’ of emergency department cervical spine computed tomography reports to determine fracture rates in patients ≥ 65, symptomatic or not, who did and did not have a dangerous mechanism. Of those ≥ 65 years old, 240/13925 (1.72%) patients had cervical spine fractures. The fracture rate in asymptomatic patients ≥ 65 was 0.27%. The fracture rate in asymptomatic patients ≥ 65, who did not have a dangerous mechanism of injury was 0.15%. The rate of unstable fractures requiring surgery was 0.007%. The findings suggest that the algorithm to scan asymptomatic patients ≥ 65, and/or those ≥ 65 without a dangerous injury mechanism, should be revisited for appropriateness and overall value. ABBREVIATIONS: CCR = The Canadian Cervical Spine Rule; CSCT = cervical spine computed tomography; ED = emergency department; EMR = electronic medical record; MVC = motor vehicle collision
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".