Bayesian evaluation of the accuracy of a thoracic auscultation scoring system in dairy calves with bronchopneumonia using a standard lung sound nomenclature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although thoracic auscultation (AUSC) in calves is quick and easy to perform, the definition of lung sounds is highly variable and leads to poor to moderate accuracy in diagnosing bronchopneumonia (BP). HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an AUSC scoring system based on a standard lung sound nomenclature at different cut-off values, accounting for the absence of a gold standard test for BP diagnosis. ANIMALS: Three hundred thirty-one calves. METHODS: We considered the following pathological lung sounds: increased breath sounds (score 1), wheezes and crackles (score 2), increased bronchial sounds (score 3), and pleural friction rubs (score 4). Thoracic auscultation was categorized as AUSC1 (positive calves for scores ≥1), AUSC2 (positive calves for scores ≥2), and AUSC3 (positive calves for scores ≥3). The accuracy of AUSC categorizations was determined using 3 imperfect diagnostic tests with a Bayesian latent class model and sensitivity analysis (informative vs weakly informative vs noninformative priors and with vs without covariance between ultrasound and clinical scoring). RESULTS: Based on the priors used, the sensitivity (95% Bayesian confidence interval [BCI]) of AUSC1 ranged from 0.89 (0.80-0.97) to 0.95 (0.86-0.99), with a specificity (95% BCI) of 0.54 (0.45-0.71) to 0.60 (0.47-0.94). Removing increased breath sounds from the categorizations resulted in increased specificity (ranging between 0.97 [0.93-0.99] and 0.98 [0.94-0.99] for AUSC3) at the cost of decreased sensitivity (0.66 [0.54-0.78] to 0.81 [0.65-0.97]). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: A standardized definition of lung sounds improved AUSC accuracy for BP diagnosis in calves.
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 | 0.042 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".