MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404377576

Emergency medicine ultrasonography in rural communities.

2012· article· en· W2404377576 on OpenAlexaffabout
Flynn Cj, A Weppler, Daniel Theodoro, Elizabeth M Haney, Milne Wk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGraduation (instrument)Position statementFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsUltrasonographyEmergency departmentRural areaRural communityDemographyNursingSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) published a position statement in 2006 encouraging immediate access to emergency medicine ultrasonography (EMUS) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, barriers to advanced imaging care still exist in many rural hospitals. Our study investigated the current availability of EMUS in rural communities and physicians' ability to use this technology. METHODS: A literature review and interviews with rural physicians were conducted in the summer of 2010 to design a questionnaire focusing on EMUS. The survey was then sent electronically or via regular mail in November 2010 to all Ontario physicians self-identified as "rural." Descriptive statistics and the Fisher exact test were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 207 rural physicians responded to the survey (response rate 28.6%). Of the respondents, 70.9% were male, median age was 49 years and median year of graduation was 1988. The respondents had been in practice for a median of 20 years and had been in their present community for a median of 15 years. More than two-thirds of physicians (69.5%) practised in communities with populations of less than 10 000. Nearly three-quarters (72.6%) worked in a rural emergency department (ED). Almost all (96.9%) reported having access to ultrasonography in the hospital. However, only 60.6% had access to ultrasonography in the ED. Less than half (44.4%) knew how to perform ultrasonography, with 77.3% citing lack of training. Of those using EMUS, 32.5% were using it at least once per shift. The most common reason to use EMUS was to rule out abdominal aortic aneurysm (58.3%). Most respondents (71.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that EMUS is a skill that all rural ED physicians should have. CONCLUSION: Patients in many rural EDs do not have immediate access to EMUS, as advocated by CAEP. This gap in care needs to be addressed to ensure that all patients, no matter where they live, have access to this proven imaging modality.

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)0.007
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207