MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119968141 · doi:10.1258/jtt.2009.081007

User's perceptions of remote trauma telesonography

2009· article· en· W2119968141 on OpenAlexaffabout
Azzam Al-Kadi, Dianne Dyer, Chad G. Ball, Paul B. McBeth, Robert Hall, Steve Lan, Chuck Gauthier, Jeff Boyd, Jane Cusden, Christopher Turner, Douglas R. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsBanff Mineral Springs HospitalFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTelemedicineMajor traumaMedical emergencyEmergency medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We established a pilot tele-ultrasound system between a rural referring hospital and a tertiary care trauma centre to facilitate telementoring during acute trauma resuscitations. Over a 12-month period, 23 tele-ultrasound examinations were completed. The clinical protocol examined both the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) and the Extended FAST (EFAST) for pneumothoraxes. Twenty of the examinations were conducted during acute trauma resuscitations and three during live patient simulations. FAST examinations were completed in all 23 cases and EFAST examinations in 17 cases. There were 18 clinical users, of whom 14 completed a survey (76% response rate). Overall, 93% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the telemedicine interaction and agreed or strongly agreed that the technology could potentially benefit injured patients in the far north of Canada. In addition, 93% of the respondents felt that the project had improved collegiality between the two institutions involved. The majority of respondents (71%) agreed or strongly agreed that the project had improved their ultrasound skills. We believe that as further experience is obtained, tele-ultrasound will prove to be an important aid to the care of remotely injured and ill patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207