MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034917705

Validité diagnostique des critères d’Ottawa pour exclure des fractures de la cheville et du médio-pied chez l’enfant ayant subi un traumatisme : une revue systématique

2024· dissertation· en· W7034917705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleTraumatologySports medicineOrthopedic surgeryMEDLINEPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Traumatology is a frequent reason for medical consultation, particularly in emergency Departments. In this context, the use of X-rays is therefore common and trivialized. Injuries commonly occur among children population, including 10 to 25% fractures, but in paediatrics, ankle fractures represent only 5% of fractures and as far as the foot, the percentage becomes 5 to 8%. Objective: To determine the diagnostic validity of the Ottawa criteria for both ankle and midfoot in children aged between 9 months and 19 years who have suffered trauma. Method: In this systematic literature review, the identification and selection of studies were carried out on the electronic databases Medline and DiTA. The risk of bias of the included articles was calculated using the QUADAS-2 scale. The AMSTAR-2 and GRADE grids have been used to calculate the internal validity and level of evidence of this review. Results: 5 articles were finally included in the qualitative analysis. The analysed results include: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictivity values, as well as positive (RV+) and negative (RV-) likelihood ratios. Discussion: For the ankle test, the sensitivities found were categorized as moderate to high, while the specificities were low. RV- were strong to very strong, unlike RV+ which were weak. Conclusion: The Ottawa ankle criteria can be applied in children to exclude ankle fractures, however we cannot conclude from this review for the midfoot criteria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207