MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388488616 · doi:10.1136/rapm-2023-104983

Validation of a novel point-of-care ultrasound method to assess diaphragmatic excursion

2023· article· en· W4388488616 on OpenAlexaff
Diogo Da Conceicao, Anahi Perlas, Laura Girón‐Arango, Kim Wild, Qixuan Li, Ella Huszti, Jayanta Chowdhury, Vincent Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExcursionDiaphragmatic breathingDiaphragm (acoustics)UltrasoundAnatomyNuclear medicineSurgeryRadiologyLawPathologyVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound can assess diaphragmatic function and rule in or rule out paresis of the diaphragm. While this is a useful bedside tool, established methods have significant limitations. This study explores a new method to assess diaphragmatic motion by measuring the excursion of the uppermost point of the zone of apposition (ZOA) at the mid-axillary line using a high-frequency linear ultrasound probe and compares it with two previously established methods: the assessment of the excursion of the dome of the diaphragm (DOD) and the thickening ratio at the ZOA. METHODS: This is a single-centre, prospective comparative study on elective surgical patients with normal diaphragmatic function. Following research ethics board approval and patient written consent, 75 elective surgical patients with normal diaphragmatic function were evaluated preoperatively. Three ultrasound methods were compared: (1) assessment of the excursion of the DOD using a curvilinear probe through an abdominal window; (2) assessment of the thickening fraction of the ZOA; and (3) assessment of the excursion of the ZOA. The last two methods performed with a linear probe on the lateral aspect of the chest. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were studied. We found that the evaluation of the excursion of the ZOA was more consistently successful (100% bilaterally) than the evaluation of the excursion of the DOD (98.7% and 34.7% on the right and left sides, respectively). The absolute values of the excursion of the ZOA were greater than and well correlated with the values of the DOD. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data from this exploratory study suggest that the evaluation of the excursion of the ZOA on the lateral aspect of the chest using a linear probe is consistently successful on both right and left sides. Future studies are needed to establish the distribution of normal values and suggest diagnostic criteria for diaphragmatic paresis or paralysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03225508.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207