Surgeon attitudes toward point of care ultrasound for biliary disease: a nationwide Canadian survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Multiple studies confirm that point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has a high sensitivity and specificity for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. However, there is poor perceived reliability of biliary PoCUS by surgeons. This survey was performed to assess surgeons’ opinions on using PoCUS in gallstone disease and barriers that exist for its institution. The majority (60.3%) of respondents reported a total lack of confidence in PoCUS for the diagnosis of biliary disease. Most felt the sensitivity of PoCUS was poor and had concerns about the user-dependent nature of the test and the lack of imaging details provided. If offered ideal clinical/laboratory findings with PoCUS results, only 4.7% of surgeons would definitely operate for unremitting biliary colic and 5.4% for cholecystitis. The ability to replicate findings independently increased confidence in clinical decision-making. Our findings suggest there is substantial distrust in biliary PoCUS but that specific ultrasound training for the surgical workforce may prove tremendously beneficial for its utilization.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".