Short communication: Diagnostic accuracy of focused lung ultrasonography as a rapid method for the diagnosis of respiratory disease in dairy calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study estimates the accuracy of the focused lung ultrasound (FLUS) compared with systematic thoracic ultrasonography (TUS) as the reference test for diagnosing pneumonia in pre- and postweaned dairy calves. One hundred thirty-five Holstein Friesian calves, aged between 1 to 6 mo were enrolled and were kept in the same pen with one or more animals showing signs of bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC). One operator performed FLUS on each calf, and then a second, blinded operator performed TUS on the same calf. For the FLUS, we only scanned the lung lobes that are most frequently affected during BRDC and are thus easier to detect, such as the caudal aspect of the cranial lobe of the left lung (fifth and fourth left intercostal spaces; ICS), the middle lobe of the right lung (fifth right ICS), and the caudal aspect of the cranial lobe of the right lung (fourth right ICS). Pneumonia was diagnosed when a calf had a minimum of one small lobular lung lesion that was at least 1 cm deep within a normally aerated lobe (TUS score of ≥2). Diagnostic accuracy indexes of the FLUS were calculated using TUS as the gold standard. The McNemar test was performed to evaluate the differences between the 2 techniques. In addition, an intertest agreement was assessed using the weighted kappa test. A total of 76 out of 135 calves had a TUS score of ≥2 and were therefore considered to be affected by BRDC. The FLUS had a sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI = 71.0-89.5%), specificity = 100% (95% CI = 93.9-100%), positive predictive value was 100%, negative predictive value was 96.6% (95% CI = 94.7---97.9%), and accuracy was 97% (95% CI = 92.6-99.2%). The McNemar test highlighted a difference of 10.3% between the FLUS and TUS. The agreement between the TUS and FLUS was substantial (weighted kappa test 0.78). Although FLUS shows some limitations in diagnosing lung lesions associated with BRDC compared with the systematic approach, this study shows that the focused method could be used as an additional tool for evaluating consolidation, especially when examining a large number of postweaned dairy calves.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".