The use of lung ultrasound during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a challenge to every health system. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this pandemic will disappear soon. No health system, with its present resources and workflow, is capable enough to deal with a full-blown wave of this pandemic. Acquisition of specific new skills may be fundamental in delivering appropriate health care for our patients. The gold standard for diagnosis of the COVID-19 infection is real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Radiological investigations (chest X-ray or high-resolution computerized tomography [CT]) can be helpful both for diagnosis and management, but they have many limitations. Ultrasound has been suggested as a reliable and accurate tool for assessing the lungs in COVID-19 patients. Lung ultrasound (LUS) can show specific signs of interstitial pneumonia, which is characteristic of COVID-19 pulmonary infection. In addition, nonradiologist specialists with experience in ultrasound can be trained on LUS with a relatively rapid learning curve. In pregnancy, LUS can be particularly useful due to the avoidance of exposure to ionizing radiation. In this review, we present the advantages, techniques, and limitations of the use of LUS during the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific focus on pregnancy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
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".