Basic ultrasound head-to-toe skills for intensivists in the general and neuro intensive care unit population: consensus and expert recommendations of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide consensus, and a list of experts' recommendations regarding the basic skills for head-to-toe ultrasonography in the intensive care setting. METHODS: The Executive Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care (ESICM) commissioned the project and supervised the methodology and structure of the consensus. We selected an international panel of 19 expert clinicians-researchers in intensive care unit (ICU) with expertise in critical care ultrasonography (US), plus a non-voting methodologist. The panel was divided into five subgroups (brain, lung, heart, abdomen and vascular ultrasound) which identified the domains and generated a list of questions to be addressed by the panel. A Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus statements. Statements were classified as a strong recommendation (84% of agreement), weak recommendation (74% of agreement), and no recommendation (less than 74%), in favor or against. RESULTS: This consensus produced a total of 74 statements (7 for brain, 20 for lung, 20 for heart, 20 for abdomen, 7 for vascular Ultrasound). We obtained strong agreement in favor for 49 statements (66.2%), 8 weak in favor (10.8%), 3 weak against (4.1%), and no consensus in 14 cases (19.9%). In most cases when consensus was not obtained, it was felt that the skills were considered as too advanced. A research agenda and discussion on training programs were implemented from the results of the consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides guidance for the basic use of critical care US and paves the way for the development of training and research projects.
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.
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 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it