MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403074557 · doi:10.1186/s13089-024-00392-3

Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study

2024· article· en· W4403074557 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Ultrasound Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNYU Grossman School of MedicineQuality Enhancement Research InitiativeYork UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversitySchool of Medicine, Emory UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of South CarolinaVA National Center for Patient SafetyKaiser PermanenteEmory UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of Central FloridaWashington State UniversitySchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve UniversityBrown UniversityNew York City Department of Health and Mental HygieneU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundCross-sectional studyMedical physicsRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices (“handhelds”) have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ + ™ by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius ™ by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos ™ by EchoNous; TE Air ™ by Mindray; Vscan Air ™ SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify ™ by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed. Results Thirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air ™ for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air ™ for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify ™ for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air ™ , Lumify ™ , and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air ™ . The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features. Conclusions The overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air ™ , Lumify ™ , and Mindray TE Air ™ when acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air ™ was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.369 · 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