Emergency Department Resource Use in Pediatric Pneumonia: Point‐of‐Care Lung Ultrasonography versus Chest Radiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care lung ultrasonography (US) is an alternative to chest radiography for imaging of suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children. We compared pediatric emergency department (ED) time metrics between children who received point-of-care lung US versus chest radiography. Secondary objectives were comparisons of health system costs and other resources in these imaging groups. METHODS: This work was a retrospective matched cohort study of children aged 0 to 18 years in an academic urban pediatric ED who were imaged for suspected CAP with either point-of-care lung US or chest radiography. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients (101 in each group) were included in the study. The point-of-care lung US group spent a mean of 75.9 (SE, 14.3) minutes less from physician assessment to discharge (P < .0001) and 60.9 (SE, 18.1) minutes less in the overall ED length of stay (P = .0008). Physician billings and facility fees were both significantly lower (P < .0001) in the point-of-care lung US group, for a mean health systems savings of CAN$187.1 (SE, CAN$21.9). CONCLUSIONS: In children undergoing imaging for suspected CAP in our pediatric ED, point-of-care lung US by pediatric emergency medicine physicians was associated with decreased time and cost compared with chest radiography.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".