MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892167186 · doi:10.5061/dryad.d51c5b014

Predictors of abnormal computed tomography findings for paediatric head injury: a retrospective cohort study

2020· dataset· en· W6892167186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyComputed tomographyHead traumaConfidence intervalHead injuryEmergency departmentCohortCohort studyPredictive value

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Head injuries in children are common causes for visits to the emergency department (ED). Computed tomography (CT) scans are useful for confirming head injury diagnoses. However, radiation exposure from CT scans might cause lethal malignancies. We aimed to examine predictors for the indication of performing CT scans necessary for diagnosis. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Three EDs in Japan Participants: Patients aged <16 years with head trauma who underwent CT. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was abnormal CT findings that were evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). We derived predictors from three existing CDRs: Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH), Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE), and Paediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). Results: Of 1,103 eligible patients, 410 were included in this study. There were 283 (68%) boys, and the median age was 2 years. In total, 35 (9%) patients showed an abnormality, 73 (18%) were admitted, and 3 (0.7%) underwent neurosurgery. We developed a CDR consisting of 6 predictors for identifying children with abnormal CT findings: (1) severe or worsening headache; (2) GCS <15; (3) signs of skull fracture; (4) hematoma; (5) loss of consciousness; and (6) altered mental status. Our CDR had a sensitivity of 74.3%, a specificity of 75.2%, a negative predictive value of 96.9%, and a positive predictive value of 21.8%. The AUC for our rule was not inferior to those for CATCH, CHALICE, and PECARN {0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.81) versus 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73; p<0.05), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60–0.76; p=0.28), and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74); p=0.10}. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a CDR, which lowers the frequency of CT in children with head injuries, must be developed and validated.

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)0.003
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→