Die "Canadian Head Rule" für Patienten mit leichtem Schädelhirntrauma:Ist die Anwendung in Münster sinnvoll?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hintergrund: Sensitivität, Spezifität und Anwendbarkeit der Canadian Head Rule (CHR) wurde für Münsteraner Patienten evaluiert. Methoden: Eingeschlossen wurden 122 SHT-Patienten (m=74; w=48; 40.0 +/- 19.0J) der Jahre 1999-2000. Die Indikation zur CCT wurde entsprechend der CHR ermittelt und mit den CCT-Resultaten verglichen. Ergebnisse: 4/122 Patienten (3%) zeigten interventionspflichtige Verletzungen. Alle wurden durch die CHR erkannt. Die Indikation zur CCT bestand bei 67/122 Patienten (55%). 13/122 Patienten (11%) wiesen schwere Hirnverletzungen auf. Alle wurden durch die erweiterten Kriterien der CHR erkannt. Die Indikation zur CCT unter Beachtung der erweiterten Kriterien bestand bei 85/122 Patienten (78%). Schlussfolgerung: Die CHR zeigt eine hohe Sensitivität für interventionspflichtige, nicht aber für primär nicht-interventionspflichtiger Verletzungen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".