MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2493845824 · doi:10.1080/10903127.2016.1204036

Five-year Retrospective Review of Physician and Non-physician Performed Ultrasound in a Canadian Critical Care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service

2016· article· en· W2493845824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medical servicesMedical emergencyFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of prehospital ultrasonography (PHUS) to support interventions, when used by physician and non-physician air medical crew (AMC), in a Canadian helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent ultrasound examination during HEMS care from January 1, 2009 through March 10, 2014. An a priori created data form was used to record patient demographics, type of ultrasound scan performed, ultrasound findings, location of scan, type of interventions supported by PHUS, factors that affected PHUS completion, and quality indicator(s). Data analysis was performed through descriptive statistics, Student's t-test for continuous variables, Z-test for proportions, and Mann-Whitney U Test for nonparametric data. Outcomes included interventions supported by PHUS, factors associated with incomplete scans, and quality indicators associated with PHUS use. Differences between physician and AMC groups were also assessed. RESULTS: PHUS was used in 455 missions, 318 by AMC and 137 by physicians. In combined trauma and medical patients, in the AMC group interventions were supported by PHUS in 26% of cases (95% CI 18-34). For transport physicians the percentage support was found to be significantly greater at 45% of cases (95% CI 34-56) p = < 0.006. Incomplete PHUS scans were common and reasons included patient obesity, lack of time, patient access, and clinical reasons. Quality indicators associated with PHUS were rarely identified. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PHUS by both physicians and non-physicians was found to support interventions in select trauma and medical patients. Key words: emergency medical services; aircraft; helicopter; air ambulance; ultrasonography; emergency care, prehospital; prehospital emergency care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.313 · 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