Thoracic Ultrasound – EFSUMB Training Recommendations – a Position Paper
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of medical specialists increasingly use thoracic ultrasound and transthoracic ultrasound-guided interventions in their clinical practice. To ensure high quality and standardized practice across specialties, this position paper of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) describes the training requirements for thoracic ultrasound. The recommendations follow the three EFSUMB competency levels for medical ultrasound practice. Level 1 describes the skills required to perform basic thoracic ultrasound examinations and basic interventions independently, level 2 includes more advanced transthoracic ultrasound imaging and guided interventions, while level 3 involves the practice of high-level thoracic ultrasound and the use of advanced technologies. Previously, a predefined minimum number of ultrasound examinations was used to determine competence, but in recent years, a general shift towards competency-based training and assessment has been implemented. For each EFSUMB level, we outline the theoretical knowledge and practical skills needed for 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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it