The SANDHOG criteria and its validation for the diagnosis of DCS arising from bounce diving.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A three-point scale, the SANDHOG (SAN Diego Diving and Hyperbaric Organizations) criteria, was developed to diagnose DCS (decompression sickness), and then it was validated against a known database of diving related injuries. INTRODUCTION: There are currently no universally accepted diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of DCS. The SANDHOG criteria were developed to address the need for a case definition of DCS. METHODS: A point scale and entrance criteria were developed for the diagnosis of DCS. Once the entrance criterion had been met, points were awarded based upon the diver's symptoms and their time of onset. The point system and time limits (SANDHOG criteria) were determined based upon US Navy and Royal Canadian diving reports. The SANDHOG criteria were then applied on a post hoc basis to the Duke Hyperbaric database of diving injuries. Sensitivity and specificity were then calculated using three points as the cut off. The ROC (receiver operating characteristic) analysis was performed to determine the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The three point SANDHOG criteria had a specificity of 90.3% and a sensitivity of 52.7%. ROC analysis of the original SANDHOG criteria gave an AUC of 0.72. Using different point values for the diagnosis of DCS will subsequently affect the sensitivity and specificity of the SANDHOG criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The specificity of the SANDHOG criteria is good, and demonstrates that the SANDHOG criteria are a useful tool for the diagnosis of DCS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".