MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413050984 · doi:10.48095/ccrvch2025295

Acute examination to rule out cervical spine injuries in adults

2025· review· en· W4413050984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Konečný, Michal Reška, Jakub Habr, Roman Hasara, Lenka Veverková

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives in Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical spineSPINE (molecular biology)MedicinePsychologyForensic engineeringEngineeringSurgeryBiologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a brief overview of current information and recommendations regard-ing acute imaging of adult patients to rule out cervical spine injuries. It summarizes the possibilities of plain X-ray examination of the cervical spine, which is technically demand-ing and has low diagnostic yield. Therefore, it is no longer recommended. Exceptions are locations where CT is not available and patients for whom exposure to medium or high doses of ionizing radiation is contraindicated. Routinely performed CT examinations of the cervical spine to rule out injury have a significant medical and financial impact. For this reason, internationally recognized criteria sets NEXUS (National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study) and CCR (Canadian C-spine Rule) have been introduced. These include information from the patient's history and clinical examination and are used to indicate the need for cervical spine CT to exclude trauma. Both systems are described and compared. According to some recommendations and in the opinion of the authors, combining the two systems could further improve their effectiveness.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venuePerspectives in SurgerySame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207