Análisis prospectivo de las reglas de Ottawa para el tobillo: Con la modificación realizada por Leddy y cols. para aumentar su especificidad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The goal of this paper was to prospectively analyze the validity of the Ottawa ankle guidelines with Leddy modification (OARm) as clinical decision tools for ankle and/or midfoot trauma X-ray indications in primary care. Methods: All adult patients who attended spontaneously the Italian Hospital (Buenos Aires) for ankle or midfoot traumas between December 1, 2002 and April 1, 2003. Exclusion criteria were: younger than 18, pregnancy, sunstroke skin burns, injuries older than10 days, polytrauma, second evaluation for the same injury, an obviously deformed ankle or foot, altered sensory system and/or conscience, or local skin injuries due to trauma. All patients received OARm and X-rays, regardless of the OARm results. Sensitivity, negative predictive value, specificity and positive predictive value were calculated. Results: Twenty-seven of 123 patients had a fracture (21.95%), 9 in the malleolar area (7.31%) and 18 in the midfoot area (14.63%). OARm total sensitivity was 0.98 (CI 95% 0.85-0.99). Negative predictive value was 0.98 (CI 95% 0.86-0.99). Specificity was 0. 31 (CI 95% 0.23- 0.41) and positive predictive value was 0.29 (CI 95% 0.21-0.39). Conclusions: The OARm are valid in primary care as guidelines to decide whether to request X-rays for patients with ankle or midfoot traumas.
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 | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".