Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Quality Criteria Checklist: An International Consensus Statement on Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter Imaging and Measurement*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To standardize optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) and improve its research and clinical utility by developing the ONSD POCUS Quality Criteria Checklist (ONSD POCUS QCC). DESIGN: Three rounds of modified Delphi consensus process and three rounds of asynchronous discussions. SETTING: Online surveys and anonymous asynchronous discussion. SUBJECTS: Expert panelists were identified according to their expertise in ONSD research, publication records, education, and clinical use. A total of 52 panelists participated in the Delphi process. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds and three asynchronous discussion rounds generated consensus on quality criteria (QC). This started with 29 QC in addition to other QC proposed by expert panelists. The QC items were categorized into probe selection, safety, body position, imaging, measurement, and research considerations. At the conclusion of the study, 28 QC reached consensus to include in the final ONSD POCUS QCC. These QC were then reorganized, edited, and consolidated into 23 QC that were reviewed and approved by the panelists. CONCLUSIONS: ONSD POCUS QCC standardizes ONSD ultrasound imaging and measurement based on international consensus. This can establish ONSD ultrasound in clinical research and improve its utility in clinical practice.
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 | 0.181 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".