The Potential Value of Adding Colonic Sonography to Routine Abdominal Protocol in Patients With Active Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal sonography examinations include evaluation of solid intra-abdominal organs but do not routinely include assessment of the colon. The focus of this study was to determine the utility of colonic sonography in addition to abdominal imaging in the prospective evaluation of patients with nonspecific acute or subacute abdominal symptoms. Patients referred for abdominal sonography for investigation of abdominal pain were evaluated by performing routine abdominal sonography followed by a detailed colonic sonographic examination. Final diagnosis was established by a clinical history questionnaire. Twelve colon (46%) or colon-related pathologies were identified, occurring in the cohort of 26 patients with a mean age of 23 years (range, 18—77 years). Sonographic findings included normal colon ( n = 13), inflammatory bowel diseases ( n = 6), diverticular disease ( n = 5), and colon-related ancillary findings ( n = 1). The dedicated colon sonographic examination yielded a sensitivity of 91.6%, specificity of 92.8%, positive predictive value of 91.6%, and negative predictive value of 92.8% ( P < .17). Integrating the dedicated colon sonographic examination in addition to the routine abdominal sonography identified significant bowel disease and provided additional information regarding causes of patient symptoms. As this is a pilot study, additional prospective studies in larger populations are required to confirm the results and conclusions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".