Traumatic Pneumothorax Detection with Thoracic US: Correlation with Chest Radiography and CT—Initial Experience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of ultrasonography (US) with that of supine chest radiography in the detection of traumatic pneumothoraces, with computed tomography (CT) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thoracic US, supine chest radiography, and CT were performed to assess for pneumothorax in 27 patients who sustained blunt thoracic trauma. US and radiographic findings were compared with CT findings, the reference standard, for pneumothorax detection. For the purpose of this study, the sonographers were blinded to the radiographic and CT findings. RESULTS: Eleven of 27 patients had pneumothorax at CT. All 11 of these pneumothoraces were detected at US, and four were seen at supine chest radiography. In the one false-positive US case, the patient was shown to have substantial bullous emphysema at CT. Sensitivity and negative predictive value of US were 100% (11 of 11 and 15 of 15 patients, respectively), specificity was 94% (15 of 16 patients), and positive predictive value was 92% (11 of 12 patients). Chest radiography had 36% (four of 11 patients) sensitivity, 100% (16 of 16 patients) specificity, a 100% (four of four patients) positive predictive value, and a 70% (16 of 23 patients) negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: In this study, US was more sensitive than supine chest radiography and as sensitive as CT in the detection of traumatic pneumothoraces.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it