MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295492659 · doi:10.1186/s13089-016-0039-7

Ultrasound findings in critical care patients: the “liver sign” and other abnormal abdominal air patterns

2016· article· en· W2295492659 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Dahine, Annie Giard, David-Olivier Chagnon, André Denault

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Ultrasound Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitut de Cardiologie de Montréal
KeywordsMedicinePneumoperitoneumInterventional radiologyRadiologyUltrasoundAbdominal ultrasoundAbdominal surgeryCritically illSurgeryIntensive care medicineLaparoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In critical care patients, point of care abdominal ultrasound examination, although it has been practiced for over 30 years, is not as widespread as its cardiac or pulmonary counterparts. We report two cases in which detection of air during abdominal ultrasound allowed the early detection of life-threatening pathologies. In the first case, a patient with severe Clostridium difficile was found to have portal venous gas but its significance was confounded by a recent surgery. Serial ultrasonographic exams triggered a surgical intervention. In the second case, we report what we call the "liver sign" a finding in patients with pneumoperitoneum. These findings, all obtained prior to conventional abdominal imaging, had immediate clinical impact and avoided unnecessary delays and radiation. Detection of abdominal air should be part of the routine-focused ultrasonographic exam and for critically ill patients an algorithm is proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.347
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Ultrasound JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207