Can Untrained Patients Perform Their Own Skin and Soft Tissue Ultrasound Examination by Teleguidance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This pilot study aims to determine if patients untrained in performing ultrasound can self-scan to obtain images under remote clinician teleguidance during a simulated telehealth encounter. This study also seeks to describe the patients’ comfort level and barriers to performing an ultrasound examination on themselves using a handheld ultrasound device. Methods: This was a single center prospective observational cohort study conducted over a 4-month period in 2021. Patients were eligible if they had no prior training in the use of ultrasound and in the use of teleguidance. They voluntarily consented to participate at a single ambulatory internal medicine clinic. Results: 20 participants were enrolled and underwent teleguidance to ultrasound their own skin and soft tissues at the antecubital fossae. Six second video clips were evaluated by 2 subject matter experts using the Point of Care Ultrasound Image Quality scale. A score >7 was considered adequate for diagnostic interpretation. The average score was 10.15/14, with a minimum score of 5/14, and maximum score of 14/14 and a standard deviation (SD) of 2.39 using a two tailed Z-score. Setting alpha at 0.05 the 95% CI was (5.47-14.83). Conclusion: In a pilot study of 20 participants with no ultrasound experience, untrained healthy volunteers were able to perform technically acceptable and interpretable ultrasound scans using teleguidance by a trained clinician.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".