MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532097962 · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1444-9

Survey of the training and use of echocardiography and lung ultrasound in Australasian intensive care units

2016· letter· en· W2532097962 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Yang, Colin Royse, Alistair Royse, Kacey Williams, David Canty

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsMedicineTertiary careTraining (meteorology)Lung ultrasoundIntensive careUltrasoundMedical physicsEmergency medicineMedical educationMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and focused cardiac ultrasound (FCU) are now considered essential skills and a requirement of training for physicians working in the intensive care unit (ICU) [ 1 ]. TTE is a feasible and safer alternative to transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), even after cardiac surgery [ 2 ]. Acquiring competency in TTE during an already over-full curriculum is a challenge. Furthermore, lung ultrasound (LU) is becoming established for bedside diagnosis of acute respiratory pathology [ 3 ]. The current level of practice and training in TTE, TOE and LU in ICU is not yet reported. We surveyed the 114 ICUs accredited for ICU training in Australasia to determine the current prevalence of practice and training in TTE, TOE, and LU and to identify perceived obstacles in practice and training. After ethics approval, a web-based survey of 14 Multiple Choice Questions was submitted to the Directors of ICU accredited for training.

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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.366
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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207