MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414701151 · doi:10.3390/vetsci12100949

Sonographic Assessment of Hyperechoic Vertical Artifact Characteristics in Lung Ultrasound Using Microconvex, Phased Array, and Linear Transducers

2025· article· en· W4414701151 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gajewski, Katarzyna Kraszewska, Kris Gommeren, Søren Boysen

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceImage qualityTransducerArtifact (error)UltrasoundQuality assessmentPneumothoraxUltrasound imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperechoic vertical artifacts are an essential feature of lung ultrasound (LUS) arising from various pathological states. Those that meet the criteria for B-lines have the most significant diagnostic value and should be differentiated from other hyperechoic vertical artifacts of unspecified clinical importance. Although numerous studies have assessed the impacts of transducer type on the appearance of B-lines in human medicine, comparative studies in veterinary medicine are limited and conflicting. This study compares three transducer types for the assessment of hyperechoic vertical artifacts in dogs. We hypothesize that there is high-level reviewer agreement in the assessment of HVA image quality and characteristics, and that the image quality/characteristics differ between the three transducers. Dogs (n = 8) with HVAs and sonographic absence of lung consolidations, pleural effusion, and/or pneumothorax were enrolled. Twenty-four cine-loops (5 s) containing HVAs were retrospectively and independently reviewed by two reviewers, who were blinded to the case details but not transducer type. The reviewers assessed the cine-loops for the following: whether HVAs meet the B-line criteria, ease of counting HVAs, and overall image quality. Paired cine-loops from the same patient using different transducers were then presented for HVA quality comparison. Inter-rater concordance was determined using the Kappa coefficient, Kendall’s tau, and Pearson correlation coefficient, while characteristics were compared using chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests (level of significance, α = 0.05). The overall concordance of image quality was good (Pearson’s coefficient = 0.82). The PA transducer scored lower in image quality (p < 0.001), HVA blending (p = 0.014), graininess (p < 0.001), and clarity of edges (p < 0.001) when compared with the microconvex and linear transducers, and the identification of B-line criteria differed between transducers (p = 0.024). Furthermore, the PA scored lowest in the comparison of paired cine-loops regarding the image and HVA quality (p < 0.001). Although more HVAs failed to reach the far field with the linear transducer (10/16, 62.5%) compared with the microconvex (8/16, 50%) and PA (3/16, 18.5%) transducers, the linear transducer scored higher than the microconvex and PA transducers regarding its ability to count B-lines (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the type of transducer significantly impacts the characteristics of HVAs, with the PA transducer producing lower-quality images compared with the microconvex and linear transducers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary SciencesSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207