Lung Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in Cardiorespiratory Physiotherapy and Respiratory Therapy Practices: Current Status and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) strongly influences physiotherapy and respiratory therapy clinical decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU). The uptake of Lung POCUS training by physiotherapists and respiratory therapists is low in some countries, often due to many barriers to its implementation. The safe and appropriate integration of Lung POCUS into physiotherapy and respiratory therapy clinical practice may be achieved by various means. This article describes the pathway for physiotherapists to become Lung POCUS-accredited in Australia, focusing on a novel fast-track approach that may apply internationally and in other professions, such as respiratory therapy. While a fast-track approach is resource intensive, such resource allocation may be justified to support the growth of Lung POCUS in physiotherapy and respiratory therapy practice where mentor support may be inconsistent, lacking, or absent.
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 | 0.028 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".