MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390651610 · doi:10.56068/nxky6705

Prehospital Standards for Point of Care Ultrasound

2024· article· en· W4390651610 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dilpreet S. Bajwa, Jared D. W. Price, Savanna Boutin, A. Kapur

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Paramedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationQuality assuranceScope (computer science)Competence (human resources)MedicineScope of practiceMedical emergencyPoint of carePatient careMedical educationHealth careNursingComputer scienceExternal quality assessmentPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an increasingly recognized tool for the rapid bedside assessment of undifferentiated patients. With the advent of affordable portable devices, this tool has expanded to the prehospital world, offering an opportunity to improve patient care prior to arrival in the emergency department. To assess how this tool has become incorporated into paramedical care in Canada, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of paramedical licensing bodies across Canada investigating POCUS accreditation, licensing, scope of practice, and quality assurance regulation for paramedics. Overall, few provincial paramedical licensing bodies include POCUS in the scope of practice for prehospital practitioners, and those who do are not involved with POCUS training, licensing, or quality assurance. Our findings highlight the need for defined competence standards and quality assurance metrics to ensure safe and effective use of this bedside tool.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.394 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ParamedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207