MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039651377 · doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03099-8

Recommendations for core critical care ultrasound competencies as a part of specialist training in multidisciplinary intensive care: a framework proposed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM)

2020· review· en· W3039651377 on OpenAlexaff
Laurą Galarza, Lui G. Forni, Daniel De Backer, M. Slama, Bernard Cholley, Paul H. Mayo, Anthony S. McLean, Antoine Vieillard‐Baron, Daniel A. Lichtenstein, Giovanni Volpicelli, Ignacio Martín‐Loeches, Gizella Melania Istrate, Laura Galarza

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersHaukeland UniversitetssjukehusUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreUniversitatea de Medicină şi Farmacie "Carol Davila" BucureştiInselspital, Universitätsspital BernUniverzita Karlova v Praze
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachIntensive careCore competencyCore (optical fiber)NursingIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical care ultrasound (CCUS) is an essential component of intensive care practice. Although existing international guidelines have focused on training principles and determining competency in CCUS, few countries have managed to operationalize this guidance into an accessible, well-structured programme for clinicians training in multidisciplinary intensive care. We seek to update and reaffirm appropriate CCUS scope so that it may be integrated into the international Competency-based Training in Intensive Care Medicine. The resulting recommendations offer the most contemporary and evolved set of core CCUS competencies for an intensive care clinician yet described. Importantly, we discuss the rationale for inclusion but also exclusion of competencies listed. BACKGROUND/AIM: Critical care ultrasound (CCUS) is an essential component of intensive care practice. The purpose of this consensus document is to determine those CCUS competencies that should be a mandatory part of training in multidisciplinary intensive care. METHODS: A three-round Delphi method followed by face-to-face meeting among 32 CCUS experts nominated by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Agreement of at least 90% of experts was needed in order to enlist a competency as mandatory. RESULTS: The final list of competencies includes 15 echocardiographic, 5 thoracic, 4 abdominal, deep vein thrombosis diagnosis and central venous access aid. CONCLUSION: The resulting recommendations offer the most contemporary and evolved set of core CCUS competencies for an intensive care clinician yet described.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations97
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207