Do family physicians request ultrasound scans appropriately?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review family physicians' requests for abdominal, thyroid, pelvic, soft tissue, and carotid ultrasound (US) scans, and to determine whether 5% or more of these tests were not clearly indicated based on the clinical history provided. DESIGN: Analysis of 620 randomly chosen requests for US scans. SETTING: The Radiology Department at the Capital District Health Authority in Halifax, NS, between October 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. PARTICIPANTS: Two radiologists and 2 family physicians with clinical expertise and familiarity with the Canadian Association of Radiologists' 2005 guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether US requests were "indicated," "not clearly indicated," or "not legible" according to the Canadian Association of Radiologists' 2005 guidelines. Those that were illegible were discarded and replaced. Results More than 5% of requests for abdominal, thyroid, or carotid US scans were not clearly indicated. The percentages of requests for pelvic and soft tissue scans that were not clearly indicated were not significant. The reviewers found only 5 illegible request forms. Percentages of abdominal, thyroid, and carotid US scans not clearly indicated were 12.1%, 18.8%, and 25.2%, respectively. Reasons for inappropriate US requests included the following: wrong tests (3.2%), vague clinical questions (4.8%), and unfocused examinations (4.8%) for abdominal scans; wrong tests (3.2%), vague clinical questions (3.2%), unnecessary investigations (5.6%), and unnecessary follow-up examinations (5.6%) for thyroid scans; and unnecessary tests (10.5%), vague clinical questions (5.6%), and unnecessary tests for "dizziness" (10.5%) for carotid scans. CONCLUSION: More than 5% of the abdominal, thyroid, and carotid US scans requested by family physicians were not clearly indicated based on the clinical history provided. Common trends in requesting these examinations reinforce the need to improve guidelines for requesting scans and for managing many presenting complaints in family practice.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".