Point‐of‐care lung ultrasound in the assessment of patients with COVID‐19: A tutorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of point-of-care lung ultrasound for both suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients highlights the issues of accessibility to ultrasound training and equipment. Lung ultrasound is more sensitive than chest radiography in detecting viral pneumonitis and preferred over computed tomography for reasons including its portability, reduced healthcare worker exposure and repeatability. The main lung ultrasound findings in COVID-19 patients are interstitial syndrome, irregular pleural line and subpleural consolidations. Consolidations are most likely found in critical patients in need of ventilatory support. Hence, lung ultrasound may be used to timely triage patients who may have evolving pneumonitis. Other respiratory pathology that may be detected by lung ultrasound includes pulmonary oedema, pneumothorax, consolidation and large effusion. A key barrier to incorporate lung ultrasound in the assessment of COVID-19 patients is adequate decontamination of ultrasound equipment to avoid viral spread. This tutorial provides a practical method to learn lung ultrasound and a cost-effective method of preventing contamination of ultrasound equipment and a practical method for performing and interpreting lung ultrasound.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".