MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320918792 · doi:10.3390/life13020531

A Narrative Review of Point of Care Ultrasound Assessment of the Optic Nerve in Emergency Medicine

2023· review· en· W4320918792 on OpenAlexaff
Torey Lau, Justin Ahn, Rahim Manji, Daniel Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracranial pressureOptic nerveUltrasoundNarrative reviewOptic neuritisMedical physicsRadiologyIntensive care medicineOphthalmologyMultiple sclerosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) of the optic nerve is easy to learn and has great diagnostic potential. Within emergency medicine, research has primarily focused on its use for the assessment of increased intracranial pressure, but many other applications exist, though the literature is heterogeneous and largely observational. This narrative review describes the principles of POCUS of the optic nerve including anatomy and scanning technique, as well as a summary of its best studied clinical applications of relevance in emergency medicine: increased intracranial pressure, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, optic neuritis, acute mountain sickness, and pediatric intracranial pressure assessment. In many of these applications, sonographic optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) has moderately high sensitivity and specificity, but the supporting studies are heterogeneous. Further studies should focus on standardization of the measurement of ONSD, establishment of consistent diagnostic thresholds for elevated intracranial pressure, and automation of ONSD measurement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207