Comparative evaluation of lung ultrasound versus chest X-ray for pneumothorax assessment post-invasive intrathoracic procedures: A case-costing evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistently increasing healthcare spending, paired with growing healthcare demand, highlights the need to identify mechanisms for cost savings. Chest radiography (CXR) is commonly performed following intrathoracic procedures to rule out pneumothorax (PTX) even if the clinical pretest probability is low. However, lung ultrasound (LUS) is known to have superior sensitivity, possibly representing a promising cost-saving tool. In response, we conducted an economic analysis comparing LUS and CXR to exclude PTX after invasive intrathoracic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of the radiology case-costing center was performed at an academic cardiothoracic surgical institution to identify the activity and cost of CXRs performed to rule out PTX following intrathoracic procedures. This cost was then compared to the theoretical cost of LUS. RESULTS: CXRs performed to rule out iatrogenic PTX were common with 22,274 radiographs completed and were economically burdensome, with an associated cost of $1.4 million. Portable CXR cost $75.46 per test, while CXR posteroanterior/lateral costs $41.64. Comparatively, LUS cost $38.38. Implementation would lead to cost savings of $559,537.10 or $41.58, on average, per patient. CONCLUSION: Given the superiority of LUS in terms of sensitivity and accuracy for PTX diagnosis, these findings underscore the compelling rationale for its broader integration into clinical practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".