Introduction to principles of the radiological investigation of the neonate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The team approach to neonatal imaging The clinical and radiological examinations are the foundation of medical investigation of the acutely ill neonate. The proper use and interpretation of radiological studies requires teamwork and clear communication between the clinicians (including the obstetricians and surgeons, as appropriate) and the radiologists. Some literature confirms that a radiologist's interpretation oft en differs from the clinician's interpretation. In a prospective study, five pediatric intensivists interpreted 460 chest x-rays (CXRs) and were matched against a “gold-standard” opinion of a pediatric radiologist. This resulted in “important” discordance in 7% of CXRs, but most of these did not lead to management changes [1]. These data can be used to support an argument that clinicians do not need interpretative assistance. Alternatively, one could say that clinicians have an unacceptable rate of incorrect interpretation. The CXR is the most frequent radiological test in intensive care units. Differences between clinician and radiologist interpretations are greater when less common forms of radiology are evaluated. We suggest that the different perspectives of the clinician and the radiologist can be viewed as symbiotic. With the advent of digital radiology, direct face-to-face communication with the radiologist has become less common. To facilitate a coordinated approach, regular rounds between the radiologists responsible for reporting the neonatal films and the clinical team are advised.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.029 |
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".