Emergency Physician–performed Ultrasound to Diagnose Cholelithiasis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the diagnostic test characteristics of bedside emergency physician (EP)-performed ultrasound (US) for cholelithiasis in symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: A search was conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, bibliographies of previous systematic reviews, and abstracts from major emergency medicine conference proceedings. We included studies that prospectively assessed the diagnostic accuracy of emergency US (EUS) for cholelithiasis, compared to a criterion reference standard of radiology-performed ultrasound (RADUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or surgical findings. Two authors independently performed relevance screening of titles and abstracts, extracted data, and performed the quality analysis. Disagreements were resolved by conference between the two reviewers. EUS performance was assessed with summary receiver operator characteristics curve (SROC) analysis, with independently pooled sensitivity and specificity values across included studies. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 917 titles; eight studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a sample of 710 subjects. All included studies used appropriate selection criteria and reference standards, but only one study reported uninterpretable or indeterminate results. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.4% to 92.5%) and 88.0% (95% CI = 83.7% to 91.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in patients presenting to the ED with pain consistent with biliary colic, a positive EUS scan may be used to arrange for appropriate outpatient follow-up if symptoms have resolved. In patients with a low pretest probability, a negative EUS scan should prompt the clinician to consider an alternative diagnosis.
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 | 0.014 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".