Poster 482: Feasibility of an Audit System for Canadian Sonographers in Generalist Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert Dima: I Have No Relevant Financial Relationships To Disclose To develop and assess the feasibility of a working audit model for generalist medical sonographers in Canada. The rapid growth and development of the dynamic field of sonography highlights the importance to produce quantitative evidence for Canadian sonographer's ability in the current healthcare environment. The audit method was employed to measure performance and identify targets of change, setting a template for further large scale investigations which may, in the future, influence and inform considerations involving role expansion of sonographers in Canada. Quantitative literature review. Radiological Sciences Department of a Canadian Health Care Institution. 429 subjects. An audit method of 433 generalist ultrasound exams was performed in the Radiological Sciences Department of a Canadian healthcare institution. Technologist reports were contrasted with radiologist final reports and a degree of agreement (DoA) was assigned for each exam package by content analysis. N/A. 75% (322/429) exam packages were ranked as DoA 1 (greatest agreement between sonographer and radiologist), 20% (86/429) were ranked as DoA 2, 4% (16/429) were ranked as DoA 3 and 1% (5/429) were ranked as DoA 4 (significant discrepancy between sonographer and radiologist). No definite trends in agreement between sonographer and radiologist based on the type of exam being performed were evident. The findings reveal good (75%) agreement between sonographer and radiologist on imaging findings as they are recorded in the technical impression sheets and radiologist reports. When discrepancies arise, they are usually minor and involve the omission of incidental/additional findings by the radiologist. The methods employed in this study may be suitable for large-scale audits of sonographer performance and reporting practices, as individual review of images may present significant logistical challenges. Level IV
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".