MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412112861 · doi:10.1097/pec.0000000000003439

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Acute Pediatric Ankle Injuries

2025· article· en· W4412112861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathleen M. Smith, Elise Zimmerman, Zola Trotter, Shannon Wai

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeAnkleEmergency departmentUltrasoundPoint of care ultrasoundProspective cohort studyDiagnostic accuracyPhysical therapyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine test performance characteristics of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the diagnosis of pediatric ankle fractures compared with ankle x-rays. Secondary objectives were to determine if POCUS can reduce the number of x-rays, analyze diagnostic errors, compare the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) with POCUS, and determine if the outcome of the ultrasound results is affected by the musculoskeletal ultrasound experience of the pediatric emergency physicians. METHODS: This was a prospective study of children aged 6 to 18 years who presented to the emergency department with ankle injuries with no prior x-rays. The physicians received a 2-hour training session, performed an ultrasound with a standardized protocol, and documented the POCUS results as positive or negative for fracture. The reference standard was the radiologist's x-ray interpretation. RESULTS: We enrolled 118 patients with a median age of 12 years (interquartile range, 10 to 14 years). There were 17 fractures among 15 patients; 8 were clinically significant. Overall, POCUS would reduce x-rays by 105 (89%), but miss 6 fractures, including 1 clinically significant fracture. For detecting all ankle fractures, POCUS yielded a sensitivity of 60% (95% CI, 32.3-83.7), a specificity of 96% (95% CI, 90.4-98.9), a positive predictive value of 69.2 (95% CI, 44.2-86.5), and a negative predictive value of 94.3 (95% CI, 89.9-96.9). For the detection of clinically significant fractures, POCUS yielded a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% CI, 47.4-99.7), a specificity of 94.6% (95% CI, 88.5-97.9), a positive predictive value of 53.9 (95% CI, 33.9-72.6), and a negative predictive value of 99.1 (95% CI, 94.3-99.9). The sensitivity of POCUS + OAR and OAR alone was 90% (95% CI, 55.5-99.8), but the specificity was 0% (95% CI not computed). CONCLUSIONS: POCUS alone or combined with OAR is an inadequate screening tool to detect pediatric ankle fractures.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Emergency CareSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207