MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404198006 · doi:10.4103/cjrm.cjrm_1_24

Canadian CT head rule adherence in a rural hospital without in-house computed tomography

2024· article· en· W4404198006 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew D. Lavery, Rylen A. Williamson, Jason Curran, July Wilkey, Kirk McCarroll

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Rural Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsInterior HealthVictoria HospitalUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographicsComputed tomographyEmergency departmentLegal guardianPediatricsRadiologyNursingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine the difference between Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) indicated imaging rates and actual imaging rates for patients with mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs) at a rural emergency department (ED) without in-house computed tomography (CT). In addition, we compared CCHR adherence at a hospital without CT to previous publications from centres with CT to determine if rural populations receive less CT imaging for minor head traumas when indicated by the CCHR. METHODS: This retrospective chart review explored individuals who presented to a rural ED (no in-house CT scanner) with a primary diagnosis of mild head injury or concussion between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2021. Information regarding CCHR criteria, transfer status and patient demographics was collected. Descriptive analyses were completed to determine the percentage of patients who received appropriate transfer for imaging, did not receive transfer for imaging when indicated and received unnecessary transfer. RESULTS: A total of 124 charts met our inclusion criteria (17 [12.1%] charts excluded), with 25.8% transferred to the nearest hospital for CT imaging. After applying the CCHR criteria to our charts, 62.1% were indicated for CT. Of the 62.1%, only 35.1% were transferred for imaging (51.2% of high-risk and 16.7% of medium-risk). CONCLUSION: By exploring CT rates for mTBIs in a rural Canadian ED, we found low transfer rates (35.1%) of CCHR-indicated patients for imaging needed to guide further healthcare decisions. This work highlights a discrepancy within the Canadian healthcare system between rural and urban centres and allows for opportunities to help narrow the gap in health care. INTRODUCTION: Nous avons cherché à déterminer la différence entre les taux d'imagerie indiqués par le Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR, règlement canadien relatif à la tomodensitométrie de la tête) et les taux d'imagerie réels pour les patients souffrant de traumatismes craniocérébraux légers (TCCL) dans un service d'urgence rural ne disposant pas d'une tomographie par ordinateur interne. En outre, nous avons comparé l'adhésion au CCHR dans un hôpital sans tomographie par ordinateur à des publications antérieures provenant de centres avec tomographie par ordinateur afin de déterminer si les populations rurales reçoivent moins d'imagerie par tomodensitométrie pour les traumatismes crâniens mineurs lorsque le CCHR l'indique. MTHODES: Cette étude rétrospective des dossiers a exploré les personnes qui SE sont présentées à une urgence rurale (sans tomodensitomètre interne) avec un diagnostic primaire de traumatisme crânien léger ou de commotion cérébrale entre le 1er janvier 2017 et le 31 décembre 2021. Les informations concernant les critères du CCHR, l'état de transfert et les données démographiques des patients ont été recueillies. Des analyses descriptives ont été réalisées pour déterminer le pourcentage de patients ayant reçu un transfert approprié pour l'imagerie, n'ayant pas reçu de transfert pour l'imagerie quand c'était indiqué et ayant reçu un transfert inutile. RSULTATS: Au total, 124 dossiers répondaient à nos critères d'inclusion [17 (12,1%) dossiers exclus], dont 25,8% ont été transférés à l'hôpital le plus proche pour une imagerie par tomodensitométrie. Après avoir appliqué les critères du CCHR à nos dossiers, 62,1% d'entre eux étaient indiqués pour une tomodensitométrie. Sur ces 62,1%, seuls 35,1% ont été transférés pour imagerie (51,2% de haut risque, 16,7% de risque moyen). CONCLUSION: En explorant les taux de tomodensitométrie pour les TCCL dans un service d'urgence rural canadien, nous avons constaté de faibles taux de transfert (35,1%) des patients recommandés par le CCRH pour une imagerie nécessaire dans le but de guider les décisions de soins de santé ultérieures. Ce travail met en évidence un écart dans le système de santé canadien entre les centres ruraux et urbains et offre des opportunités pour aider à réduire l'écart dans les soins de santé.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Rural MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207