Comparison of Two Lung Ultrasound Protocols for Identification and Distribution of B‐, I‐, and Z‐Lines in Clinically Healthy Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and distribution of B-, I-, and Z-lines in clinically healthy cats and to determine whether there is a difference in frequency and distribution between two different lung ultrasound protocols. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study from June to September 2022. SETTING: Companion animal referral hospital. ANIMALS: Sixty-four cats determined to be healthy based on history and physical examination. INTERVENTIONS: All cats had point-of-care lung ultrasound performed with frequency of B-, I-, and Z-lines recorded. Findings of a modified Calgary pleura and lung ultrasound (PLUS) protocol (19 sites recorded) and a veterinary Brief Lung Ultrasound Exam (VetBLUE) protocol (nine sites), both including the subxiphoid site, were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: B-lines were identified in 14%-27% of cats depending on the protocol used, with a median of <3 B-lines total per cat, <2 B-lines per hemithorax, and ≤2 positive B-line sites per hemithorax, regardless of the protocol used. The total number of B-, I-, or Z-lines identified was significantly higher for the modified Calgary PLUS compared with VetBLUE. The number of cats with ≥1 B- and I-lines was significantly higher with modified Calgary PLUS compared with VetBLUE, with 17 (26.6%) and 42 (65.6%) versus nine (14.1%) and 34 (53.1%) cats identified, respectively. Z-lines were identified in 62 (96.9%) cats regardless of the protocol used. Three (4.7%) cats had ≥1 B-line at the subxiphoid view. CONCLUSIONS: B-lines were detected in <30%, I-lines in >50%, and Z-lines in >95% of clinically healthy cats regardless of protocol used. B-lines were rarely detected at the subxiphoid view. A significant difference between protocols was found when comparing the percentage of cats with B- and I-lines.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".