Incidental Findings in POCUS: “Chance favors the prepared mind”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has the potential to rapidly aide in diagnostic algorithms at the bedside, however POCUS users are often faced with the dilemma of appropriate management of incidental findings [1]. Incidental findings in POCUS are defined as any indeterminate, benign, or potentially concerning finding found unexpectedly that is not related to the patient’s chief complaint [2]. Increased use of POCUS has driven the increased discovery of incidental findings, with a reported frequency between 1.6% to 26% depending on the institution, frequency of documentation, and level of experience [1,2]. While many incidental findings are benign, some are not and benefit from follow-up. This raises important concerns regarding the need for systematic, evidence-based guidelines to ensure necessary follow-up while avoiding unnecessary additional imaging, patient anxiety and increased healthcare costs [1,3].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".