Chest ultrasonography to assess the kinetics and efficacy of talc pleurodesis in a model of pneumothorax: an experimental animal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Talc pleurodesis is used to avoid recurrences in malignant pleural effusions or pneumothorax. The lack of lung sliding detected by chest ultrasonography (CUS) after talc application is indicative of the effectiveness of pleurodesis. The objective of our study was to explore, in an animal model, the capacity of CUS to predict the quality of a symphysis induced by talc poudrage (TP) and talc slurry (TS). We induced an artificial pneumothorax in six healthy pigs prior to talc application. TP was performed on one hemithorax, followed by TS on the other side 1 week later. 108 points on the chest were marked and evaluated by ultrasonography during the study. TP showed higher sonographic scores compared to TS starting from 72 h after talc administration. At autopsy, a higher grade of symphysis was observed for TP, and a high correlation rate was registered between CUS and macroscopic findings. Histological analysis also showed a higher grade of pleural symphysis for TP. CUS is a reliable tool to assess talc pleurodesis. The quality and kinetics of the pleural symphysis are also evaluable by ultrasonography. Pleurodesis by TP is more effective than TS in this experimental model of pneumothorax.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".