Feasibility of an Audit System for Canadian Sonographers in Generalist Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to employ the audit method to measure performance and identify targets of change, setting a template for future large-scale investigations that may inform decisions involving sonographer role expansion in Canada. The authors conducted an audit of 433 sonographic examinations performed in the ultrasound department of a Canadian hospital. Sonographer reports were contrasted with radiologist final reports, and a degree of agreement (DoA) 1 to 4 was assigned to each exam package. In total, 322 of 429 (75%) exam packages were ranked as DoA 1 (complete agreement between sonographer and radiologist), 86 of 429 (20%) were ranked as DoA 2, 16 of 429 (4%) were ranked as DoA 3, and 5 of 429 (1%) were ranked as DoA 4 (significant discrepancy between sonographer and radiologist). The results revealed a 75% agreement between sonographer and radiologist on imaging findings as they are recorded in technical impression sheets and reports. Discrepancies are usually minor and involve the omission of incidental findings by the radiologist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".