MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547526502 · doi:10.1186/s13089-016-0049-5

Pediatric emergency medicine point-of-care ultrasound: summary of the evidence

2016· review· en· W2547526502 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Ultrasound Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint of care ultrasoundPediatric emergency medicineMedicinePoint of careGuidelineSpecialtyInterventional radiologyCredentialingMEDLINEFamily medicineMedical emergencyEmergency departmentNursingEmergency physicianRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound is well supported by the medical literature. Consequently, pediatric emergency medicine providers have embraced this technology in everyday practice. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement endorsing the use of point-of-care ultrasound by pediatric emergency medicine providers. To date, there is no standard guideline for the practice of point-of-care ultrasound for this specialty. This document serves as an initial step in the detailed "how to" and description of individual point-of-care ultrasound examinations. Pediatric emergency medicine providers should refer to this paper as reference for published research, objectives for learners, and standardized reporting guidelines.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.341 · 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