MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792845558 · doi:10.1177/154431671704100402

Applying Criterion-Based Indications for Vascular Ultrasound Studies: Planning Quality Improvement

2017· article· en· W2792845558 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas L. Wooster, Mary E. Angelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Vascular Ultrasound · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuditUltrasoundPhysical therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Although most ultrasound facilities rely on the referring physicians' request for testing, inappropriate indications for ultrasound studies have been cited as a quality metric and source of poor resource use. In 2015, the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission mandated that ultrasound facilities undertake educational and other strategies to address this as a quality improvement initiative, including education of referring physicians. We proposed to study the indications noted in referrals to develop such quality strategies. Methods Dedicated vascular ultrasound facilities were asked to participate. An electronic search of guidelines, standards, and criteria for testing was done. The indication for testing in consecutive patients was collated with adherence to standards and criteria for testing, type of referring physician, patient demographics, and findings. Care gaps were identified to serve as a “needs assessment” for educational and other strategies to address quality improvement. Results Three facilities agreed to participate (one academic, two community). A total of 4,654 studies were analyzed. The vascular domains included were: carotid (610), aorta (217), renal (52), upper extremity arteries (56), lower extremity arteries (1,465), lower extremity venous for deep venous thrombosis (1,377), and lower extremity venous for chronic venous insufficiency (877). Overall, appropriate criteria were cited for 76–96% of studies; the academic facility had higher adherence. There was no difference between family physician and specialist referrals. Diagnostic positive yields were found in 48–68% in different test categories; aortic screening yield was 8.1%. Specific “teaching points” included “headaches” and “neck pain” for carotid studies, aortic screening outside of “targets,” “numb toes,” and “swelling” for arterial duplex; no clear issues were identified for venous studies. Conclusions This study does identify inappropriate indications for vascular ultrasound with no systematic findings. There are specific teaching points that can be used to direct educational strategies for referring physicians.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Vascular UltrasoundSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207