Multi-societal expert consensus statement on the safe administration of ultrasound contrast agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) offers a safe, reliable imaging option to establish a clinical diagnosis across a variety of multidisciplinary settings. This Expert Consensus Statement serves to outline expert opinion on what constitutes appropriate supervision and the essential components of safe CEUS practice. The purpose of this document is to empower institutions to allow sonographers, along with other trained medical professionals, to administer UCAs at the point of care, consistent with the updated scope of practice documentation and within the broad parameters of an individual's training and licensure, while subject to appropriate supervision and meeting or exceeding minimum safety standards. This guidance was developed by the International Contrast Ultrasound Society and endorsed by the following organizations that represent ultrasound professionals: the British Society of Echocardiography, the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the World Federation of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, the Brazilian College of Radiology, the Joint Review Committee for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Chinese Ultrasound Doctors Association, and the American Society of Neuroimaging. Additionally, this guidance document was affirmed or supported by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Association for Medical Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Ultrasound.
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 | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".