Point-of-care lung ultrasound in young children with respiratory tract infections and wheeze
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Characterise lung ultrasound (LUS) findings, diagnostic accuracy and agreement between novice and expert interpretations in young children with respiratory tract infections and wheeze. METHODS: Prospective cross-sectional study in a paediatric ED. Patients ≤2 years with a respiratory tract infection and wheeze at triage were recruited unless in severe respiratory distress. Prior to clinical management, a novice sonologist performed the LUS using a six-zone scanning protocol. The treating physician remained blinded to ultrasound findings; final diagnoses were extracted from the medical record. An expert sonologist, blinded to all clinical information, assessed the ultrasound video clips at study completion. Positive LUS was defined as the presence of ≥1 of the following findings: ≥3 B-lines per intercostal space, consolidation and/or pleural abnormalities. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were enrolled (median age 11.1 months). LUS was positive in 42% (39/94) of patients (multiple B-lines in 80%, consolidation in 64%, pleural abnormalities in 23%). The proportion of positive LUS, along with their diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity (95% CI), specificity (95% CI)), were as follows for children with bronchiolitis, asthma, pneumonia and asthma/pneumonia: 46% (45.8% (34.0% to 58.0%), 72.7% (49.8% to 89.3%)), 0% (0% (0.0% to 23.3%), 51.3% (39.8% to 62.6%)), 100% (100% (39.8% to 100.0%), 61.1% (50.3% to 71.2%)), 50% (50% (6.8% to 93.2%), 58.9% (48.0% to 69.2%)), respectively. There was good agreement between the novice and expert sonographers for a positive LUS (kappa 0.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.82)). CONCLUSIONS: Among children with respiratory tract infections and wheeze, a positive LUS seems to distinguish between clinical syndromes by ruling in pneumonia and ruling out asthma. If confirmed in future studies, LUS may emerge as a point-of-care tool to guide diagnosis and disposition in young children with wheeze.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".