MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309367240 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6811e326

Point-of-care ultrasound for evaluation of vaginal bleeding or abdominal pain in early pregnancy

2022· article· en· W4309367240 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Varner, Shirley Lee, Shelley McLeod, Erin Bearss, Amita Singwi, Shirley Hu, Negine Nahiddi, Bjug Borgundvaag

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsDystonia Medical Research Foundation CanadaMount Sinai HospitalSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstitutePrince County HospitalUniversity of OttawaSinai Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyPoint of care ultrasoundVaginal bleedingObstetricsObstetrics and gynaecologyAbdominal painUltrasoundSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for the assessment of patients experiencing first-trimester bleeding or abdominal pain by family physicians working in family medicine clinics following first-trimester POCUS training and certification. DESIGN: Multisite, retrospective chart review. SETTING: Two hospital-affiliated academic family medicine clinics in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve family physicians who completed a first-trimester POCUS training and certification course. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of family physicians using POCUS during their evaluations of patients in the first trimester of pregnancy in the 6 months following the FPs' successful completion of the Family Medicine Obstetrical Ultrasound (FaMOUS) course. Secondary outcomes included indications for POCUS use, diagnostic accuracy of POCUS compared with radiologist-interpreted ultrasound, pregnancy outcomes, and emergency department visits within 10 days of the index family medicine clinic visit. RESULTS: Of the 12 certified family physicians, 7 (58.3%) used POCUS during their assessments of first-trimester patients during the study period. The FPs used POCUS with 56 patients for the following indications: 11 (19.6%) had only vaginal bleeding, 5 (8.9%) had only abdominal pain, and 8 (14.3%) had both vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain; the indication for 32 patients (57.1%) was unclear. Forty-six patients (82.1%) underwent a subsequent radiologist-interpreted ultrasound within 10 days of the index POCUS test. Compared with radiologist-interpreted ultrasound, POCUS had a sensitivity of 91.3% (95% CI 79.2% to 97.6%) for documenting intrauterine pregnancy and a sensitivity of 81.4% (95% CI 66.6% to 91.6%) for documenting the presence of fetal cardiac activity. CONCLUSION: Following a first-trimester POCUS certification course, family physicians used POCUS for the assessment of first-trimester patients with varying frequency and for indications other than vaginal bleeding or abdominal pain. Further study is needed to assess the clinical impact of office-based POCUS, unforeseen barriers and facilitators to its use, and patient and provider preferences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207