MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134531174 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19377

Short communication: Diagnostic accuracy of focused lung ultrasonography as a rapid method for the diagnosis of respiratory disease in dairy calves

2021· article· en· W3134531174 on OpenAlexaff
D. Pravettoni, Sébastien Buczinski, Giulia Sala, Vincenzo Ferrulli, F. Bianchi, Antonio Boccardo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsMedicineLungMcNemar's testGold standard (test)RadiologyPneumoniaNuclear medicineInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207