MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emergency Physician–performed Ultrasound to Diagnose Cholelithiasis: A Systematic Review

2011· review· en· W2127511966 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency physicianEmergency ultrasoundUltrasoundEmergency departmentEmergency medicineRadiologyMedical emergencyGeneral surgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.314 · 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