Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound Guidance in Transthoracic Needle Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies to assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety outcomes of ultrasound (US)-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (TTNB) for peripheral lung and pleural lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was performed through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception up to September 23, 2022 for diagnostic accuracy studies reporting US-guided TTNB (Prospero registration: CRD42021225168). The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy, which was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate inter-study heterogeneity. The secondary outcome was the frequency of complications. Random-effects models were used for the analyses. The risk of bias and the applicability of the included studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Publication bias was assessed by testing the association between the natural logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio and the effective sample size. RESULTS: Of the 7841 citations identified, 83 independent cohorts (11,767 patients) were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity of US-TTNB was 88% (95% CI: 86%-91%, 80 studies). Pooled specificity was 100% (95% CI: 99%-100%, 72 studies), resulting in positive LR, negative LR, and diagnostic odds ratio of 946 (-743 to 2635), 0.12 (0.09 to 0.14), and 8141 (1344 to 49,321), respectively. Complications occurred in 4% (95% CI: 3%-5%) of the procedures, with pneumothorax being the most frequent (3%; 95% CI: 2%-3%, 72 studies) and resulting in chest tube placement in 0.4% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%, 64 studies) of the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: US-TTNB is an effective and safe procedure for pleural lesions and peripheral lung lesions.
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 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".