Valor diagnóstico de las reglas de ottawa en las lesiones agudas de tobillo o pie en el hospital virgen de Fátima de Chachapoyas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las lesiones agudas de tobillo son una de las afecciones ortopédicas más comunes, estimadas en alrededor del 15% al 25% de todas las lesiones que ocurren en las unidades de atención de emergencia. La necesidad de solicitar pruebas adicionales para esguinces de tobillo se basa principalmente en la sospecha y la exclusión del diagnóstico de fracturas. Alrededor del 85% de las radiografías tomadas en pacientes con lesiones agudas de tobillo son normales. Las reglas de Ottawa para el tobillo establecen criterios para solicitar radiografías evitando exámenes innecesarios. El objetivo de este trabajo es determinar el valor diagnóstico de las reglas de Ottawa para el diagnóstico de las lesiones agudas de tobillo en el servicio de emergencia del Hospital Regional Virgen de Fátima de Chachapoyas durante los años 2020 y 2021. Para lo cual se realizará un estudio observacional prospectivo, transversal, basados en 521 pacientes, en quienes evaluaremos clínicamente con las reglas de Ottawa a todos los pacientes que lleguen al servicio de emergencia y correlacionaremos con las imágenes radiológicas de tobillo o pie.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".