MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991261828 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v4i2.13691

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to the use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Clinicians in Oregon

2019· article· en· W2991261828 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint of care ultrasoundMedicineClinical PracticePhysical examinationPoint of careResource (disambiguation)PerceptionNursingFamily medicinePsychologySurgeryEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) to provide clinical data beyond the history and physical examination is a relatively new practice for primary care providers and hospitalists. It takes many hours of dedicated ultrasound (US) training and practice to achieve POCUS proficiency; further, perceptions and attitudes of clinicians play a major role in adopting POCUS into daily clinical repertoire [1, 2]. Thus there are many possible barriers that could impede a clinician’s ability to develop the skillset to use POCUS in clinical practice. The state of Oregon encompasses vast rural and underserved areas where POCUS could be a useful resource to improve local patient care [3,4]. For this reason, a qualitative survey study was conducted to assess the perceived barriers of clinicians to the clinical incorporation of POCUS.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.302 · 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