Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound—State of the Art in North America
Classification
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".
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 24, 2017, in Chicago, the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound convened a panel of specialists in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to arrive at a white paper regarding the use of CEUS in noncardiac applications in North America. Recommendations are based on analysis of the current literature and common practice strategies. They represent a reasonable approach to introduce the advantages of this safe and noninvasive technique for the benefit of our patients. Characterization of liver nodules with CEUS, as the approval indication worldwide, is the major focus of this endeavor. In addition, many off label uses are reviewed and literature supporting these indications provided.Key Points(1) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) allows cross-sectional imaging of the liver, kidneys and multiple other solid and hollow viscera, providing excellent characterization of identified focal mass lesions.(2) Performed with the injection of a microbubble contrast agent, CEUS provides a safe and readily available imaging technique which requires no ionizing radiation, making it appropriate for use in all ages, in those with renal insufficiency and when a portable examination is needed.(3) The CEUS can be considered in abdominal imaging whenever blood flow information is of value to diagnosis.(4) Dynamic real-time acquisition and the use of a purely intravascular contrast agent are the 2 most essential technical aspects of CEUS imaging which distinguish it from both computed tomography and magnetic resonance scan.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it