Validation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules for Acute Foot and Ankle Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The original and modified Ottawa Ankle Rules (OARs) were developed as clinical decision rules (CDRs) for the emergency department setting.However, these CDRs have not been validated as an acute clinical evaluation tool.Currently, there are no sport-specific CDRs relating to acute ankle injuries.Objective: The objectives of this study were: to test the validity of the OARs in acute foot or ankle injury in a sport related setting and to evaluate the measures of diagnostic accuracy of specific predictor variables.Patients or Other Participants: The participants were athletic trainers assigned to university athletics, club sports, and high schools.Conclusions: The OARs did not reduce the number of unnecessary radiographs referred.The OARs in an acute setting had a high sensitivity and are good predictors to rule out the presence of a fracture.Low specificity results led to a high number of false positives and low positive predictive values.Adding one or more predictor variables may improve the validity of the OARs in the acute setting.Specificity .....
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".