MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286561520 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2022.946911

Thoracic Electrical Impedance Tomography—The 2022 Veterinary Consensus Statement

2022· review· en· W4286561520 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Brabant, David Byrne, Muriel Sacks, Fernando Moreno Martinez, Anthea L. Raisis, Joaquín Araos, Andreas D. Waldmann, Johannes Peter Schramel, Aline Magalhães Ambrósio, Giselle Hosgood, Christina Braun, Ulrike Auer, Ulrike Bleul, Nicolas Herteman, Cristy Secombe, Angelika Schoster, João Soares, Shannon G. Beazley, Carolina Meira, Andy Adler, Martina Mosing

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMurdoch University
KeywordsMedicineElectrical impedance tomographyMedical physicsThoracic wallVeterinary medicineRadiologyTomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive real-time non-ionising imaging modality that has many applications. Since the first recorded use in 1978, the technology has become more widely used especially in human adult and neonatal critical care monitoring. Recently, there has been an increase in research on thoracic EIT in veterinary medicine. Real-time imaging of the thorax allows evaluation of ventilation distribution in anesthetised and conscious animals. As the technology becomes recognised in the veterinary community there is a need to standardize approaches to data collection, analysis, interpretation and nomenclature, ensuring comparison and repeatability between researchers and studies. A group of nineteen veterinarians and two biomedical engineers experienced in veterinary EIT were consulted and contributed to the preparation of this statement. The aim of this consensus is to provide an introduction to this imaging modality, to highlight clinical relevance and to include recommendations on how to effectively use thoracic EIT in veterinary species. Based on this, the consensus statement aims to address the need for a streamlined approach to veterinary thoracic EIT and includes: an introduction to the use of EIT in veterinary species, the technical background to creation of the functional images, a consensus from all contributing authors on the practical application and use of the technology, descriptions and interpretation of current available variables including appropriate statistical analysis, nomenclature recommended for consistency and future developments in thoracic EIT. The information provided in this consensus statement may benefit researchers and clinicians working within the field of veterinary thoracic EIT. We endeavor to inform future users of the benefits of this imaging modality and provide opportunities to further explore applications of this technology with regards to perfusion imaging and pathology diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207