Validaci?n de las reglas de Ottawa para detectar fracturas de tobillo en el Hospital Regional Docente de Trujillo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Ottawa rules have diagnostic value for detecting ankle fractures in Trujillo Regional Teaching Hospital. \nMATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a, analytical, observational study of diagnostic tests, which evaluated 64 patients with acute ankle injuries between February to June 2014. \nRESULTS: The mean age for the group I was 16,67 years ? 48,67 and for group II was 32,93 ? 14,85 (p < 0,01); the 33,33% of patients were male in group I and group II 34,88%. The time of trauma in group I had an mean of 12,57 ? 13,80 and group II 7,81 ? 9,39 (p < 0,05). By associating the presence of ankle fracture according to the rules of Ottawa and radiography was observed in group I that the Ottawa ankle fracture was diagnosed in 100% and in group II was diagnosed in 65,12% (p < 0,001); the performance of the Ottawa rules to predict ankle fracture, had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 100%, 34,88, 42,86% and 100% respectively. \nCONCLUSIONS: The Ottawa rules were shown to have a proper diagnosis performance for ankle fractures, so that should be implemented in emergency trauma services. \nKEYWORDS: Rules of Ottawa, diagnostic value of 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".