Comparison of thoracic ultrasonography and thoracic radiography to detect active infectious bronchopneumonia in hospitalized dairy calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The best test between thoracic ultrasonography (TUS) and thoracic radiography (TR) or the best combination of tests (series or parallel) to detect active infectious bronchopneumonia (BP) in hospitalized dairy calves remains unknown. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To estimate performances of TUS and TR to detect active BP in hospitalized dairy calves and to determine the best strategy for using these tests based on a panel diagnosis method (PDM). Performances of TUS and TR were hypothesized to be equivalent. ANIMALS: ≥ 53 mm Hg; any reason of presentation). METHODS: Each calf prospectively and sequentially underwent physical examination, thoracic auscultation, blood analyses, and TUS and TR. Three blinded experts determined whether active BP was present/absent based on PDM. Krippendorff's alpha measured interexpert agreement. The sensitivities (Se) and specificities (Sp) of TUS and TR alone and in series or parallel were compared (McNemar's test; P < .05). RESULTS: Interexpert agreement was moderate at 0.58 (95%CI: 0.42; 0.73). The Se and Sp of TUS were 0.84 (95%CI: 0.60; 0.97) and 0.74 (95%CI: 0.57; 0.86), respectively. The Se and Sp of TR were 0.89 (95%CI: 0.67; 0.99) and 0.58 (95%CI: 0.39; 0.75), respectively. No significant difference was found in the Se and Sp of TUS and TR when analyzed alone, in series or in parallel. CONCLUSION: Thoracic ultrasonography or TR alone equally detected active BP in hospitalized dairy calves. Series or parallel analysis provided no additional benefit. Its ease of use and widespread accessibility support using TUS as a first-line test to detect active BP in hospitalized 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".