Survey on Cardiologists’ Perspectives on Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasounds (POCUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiac point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has been used with increasing frequency. As a result of this trend, this study sought to characterize cardiologists’ perspectives on cardiac POCUS. Methods: An 18-question survey on demographics, cardiac POCUS clinical practice, education, and infrastructure was distributed by 16 academic medical centers. Likert scale responses were categorized into three groups: 1) “strongly agree” or “agree” 2) “strongly disagree” and “disagree” and 3) “neutral.” Results: Of the 140 survey responses collected from January to September 2021, 41% of respondents used cardiac POCUS more than twice in an inpatient week. Seventy-one percent of cardiologists believed that cardiac POCUS should be integrated more regularly into clinical practice and into cardiology fellowship education. Less than half of respondents (44%) reported easy access to POCUS devices, and more than half of respondents (56%) did not think there was appropriate institutional infrastructure to easily upload and document cardiac POCUS images (56%). Conclusions: Academic cardiologists had varying opinions on the use and impact of cardiac POCUS. However, most cardiologists believed that cardiac POCUS should be more incorporated within practice despite persisting infrastructure barriers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".