MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183196339 · doi:10.1097/aco.0000000000001042

Training strategies for point of care ultrasound in the ICU

2021· review· en· W3183196339 on OpenAlexaff
Jason E. Cheng, Robert Arntfield

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint of care ultrasoundPoint (geometry)Point-of-care testingUltrasoundMedicineIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyRadiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ultrasound in critical care medicine (CCUS) is a relatively young tool that has been evolving rapidly as skillsets, applications and technology continue to progress. Although ultrasound is identified as a core competency in intensive care unit (ICU) training, there remains significant variability and inconsistencies in the delivery of ultrasound training. The goal of this narrative review is to explore areas of consensus and highlight areas where consensus is lacking to bring attention to future directions of ultrasound training in critical care medicine. RECENT FINDINGS: There exists considerable variation in competencies identified as basic for CCUS. Recent efforts by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine serve as the most up to date iteration however implementation is still limited by regional expertise and practice patterns. Major barriers to ultrasound training in the ICU include a lack of available experts for bedside teaching and a lack of familiarity with new technology. SUMMARY: Though international uptake of CCUS has made many gains in the past 20 years, further adoption of technology will be required to overcome the traditional barriers of CCUS training. Although the availability and time constraints of experts will remain a limitation even with wireless capabilities, the ability to expand beyond the physical constraints of an ultrasound machine will vastly benefit efforts to standardize training and improve access to knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207