P158The representation of obstetric ultrasound scan among obstetricians and ultra‐sonographers: a descriptive exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Ultrasound is one of the most known exams performed during prenatal period for diagnosis and screening, but little is known about obstetricians' perceptions associated to the exam. The aim of this study was to assess psychological representations related to obstetric ultrasound scan among obstetricians who were also ultrasonographists and those who were not. Method Psychological interview with 54 obstetricians of our Institution with different level of specialization. Results 55% believe that only a specific training is necessary to be an ultrasonographist, while 35% consider a title essential to perform the exam. Most of the subjects (98%) believe the exam has influences on the pregnant woman bonding with her baby, due to fetal visualization and the proximity feeling it favors. Almost all (93%) consider the possibility of early diagnosis the main feature of the exam while 20% mention the possibility of diagnostic mistakes and their repercussion. When asked to produce projective associations, content analysis points out to aspects associated to the qualities of the exam, particularly ‘fidelity’, precision and power. Conclusion There is a massive idealization of the exam and little difference between ultrasonographists and obstetricians. This should be approached during professional training to help them deal with the bonding aspects they themselves consider important.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".