MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739075955 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000001779

I-AIM (Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, Medical Decision-making) Framework for Point of Care Lung Ultrasound

2017· review· en· W2739075955 on OpenAlexaff
Richelle Kruisselbrink, Vincent Chan, Gian Alfonso Cibinel, Simon Abrahamson, Alberto Goffi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterpretation (philosophy)UltrasoundPoint of care ultrasoundPoint of carePoint (geometry)LungLung ultrasoundClinical decision makingMedical ultrasoundMedical physicsRadiologyIntensive care medicinePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The I-AIM (Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, Medical decision-making) model is a conceptive framework uniquely applicable to every point of care ultrasound application. We present a systematic comprehensive approach to lung ultrasound based on the I-AIM framework. Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207