Diagnostic accuracy of basic lung ultrasound in breathless patients over 60 years of age; stressing the protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction : Emergency department differentiation of pulmonary oedema from chronic obstructive airways disease causing acute breathlessness is inaccurate 25% of the time despite clinical acumen, clinician‐reported chest x‐ray and ECG. This research investigates whether a basic lung ultrasound protocol (LUS) could improve identification of pulmonary oedema in breathless elderly patients. Method : Researchers prospectively sampled patients over 60 years, describing any breathlessness on presentation to a suburban emergency department. LUS studies were acquired by experienced or novice sonologists, interpreted by a blinded reviewer and compared with cardiologist chart audit for diagnosis at admission (gold standard). The admitting doctor's diagnosis, blinded to LUS, was compared with the chart audit result. Results : 204 LUS were collected, 145 by experienced sonologist and 59 by inexperienced. Diagnostic accuracy compared to cardiologist audit was 86.2% (95% CI 80.9 to 90.3), significantly higher than 70.2%, diagnostic accuracy for admission diagnosis, difference in proportion of 16% (95%CI 7.7 to 24.4%). Conclusion : A simple lung scanning protocol can help exclude pulmonary oedema in any breathless elderly patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".