MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99871758

Prospective evaluation of hand-held focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) in blunt abdominal trauma.

2005· article· en· W99871758 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFocused assessment with sonography for traumaAbdominal traumaBluntBlunt traumaRadiologyTrauma centerAbdominal ultrasonographyProspective cohort studySurgeryPhysical examinationUltrasonographyRetrospective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US) has become indispensable in assessing the status of the injured patient. Although hand-held US equipment is now commercially available and may expand the availability and speed of US in assessing the trauma patient, it has not been subjected to controlled evaluation in early trauma care. METHODS: A 2.4-kg hand-held (HH) US device was used to perform focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) on blunt trauma victims at 2 centres. Results were compared with the "truth" as determined through formal FAST examinations (FFAST), CT, operative findings and serial examination. The ability of HHFAST to detect free fluid, intra-abdominal injuries and injuries requiring therapeutic interventions was assessed. RESULTS: HHFAST was positive in 80% of 313 patients who needed surgery or angiography. HHFAST test performances (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios of positive and negative test results) were 77%, 99%, 96%, 94%, 95%, 95 and 0.2, respectively, for free fluid, and 64%, 99%, 96%, 89%, 90%, 74 and 0.4, respectively, for documented injuries. HHFAST missed or gave an indeterminate result in 8 (3%) of 270 patients with injuries who required therapeutic intervention and 25 (9%) of 270 patients who did not require intervention. FFAST performance was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: HHFAST performed by clinicians detects intraperitoneal fluid with a high degree of accuracy. All FAST examinations are valuable tests when positive. They will miss some injuries, but the majority of the injuries missed do not require therapy. HHFAST provides an early extension of the physical examination but should be complemented by the selective use of CT, rather than formal repeat US.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.254 · 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