Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Intussusception: A Multicenter, Noninferiority Study of Paired Diagnostic Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by experienced clinician sonologists compared to radiology-performed ultrasound (RADUS) for detection of clinically important intussusception, defined as intussusception requiring radiographic or surgical reduction. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, observational study among a convenience sample of children aged 3 months to 6 years treated in tertiary care emergency departments across North and Central America, Europe, and Australia. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and RADUS with respect to clinically important intussusception. Sample size was determined using a 4-percentage-point noninferiority margin for the absolute difference in accuracy. Secondary outcomes included agreement between POCUS and RADUS for identification of secondary sonographic findings. RESULTS: The analysis included 256 children across 17 sites (35 sonologists). Of the 256 children, 58 (22.7%) had clinically important intussusception. POCUS identified 60 (23.4%) children with clinically important intussusception. The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.9% to 99.0%), compared to 99.3% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.9%) for RADUS. The absolute difference between the accuracy of RADUS and that of POCUS was 1.5 percentage points (95% CI -0.6 to 3.6). Sensitivity for POCUS was 96.6% (95% CI 87.2% to 99.1%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 94.7% to 99.2%). Agreement was high between POCUS and RADUS for identification of trapped free fluid (83.3%, n=40/48) and decreased color Doppler signal (95.7%, n=22/23). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS performed by experienced clinician sonologists may be noninferior to that of RADUS for detection of clinically important intussusception. Given the limitations of convenience sampling and spectrum bias, a larger randomized controlled trial is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".