MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415265664 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-05854-4

Lung Ultrasound Imaging Dataset for Accurate Detection and Localization of LUS Vertical Artifact

2025· article· en· W4415265664 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nixson Okila, Andrew Katumba, Joyce Nakatumba‐Nabende, Sudi Murindanyi, Cosmas Mwikirize, Jonathan Serugunda, Samuel Bugeza, Anthony Oriekot, Juliet Bossa, Eva Nabawanuka

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMakerere UniversityInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsArtifact (error)Lung ultrasoundUltrasoundPattern recognition (psychology)Economic shortageDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lung ultrasound (LUS) vertical artifacts are critical sonographic markers commonly used in evaluating pulmonary conditions such as pulmonary edema, interstitial lung disease, pneumonia, and COVID-19. Accurate detection and localization of these artifacts are vital for informed clinical decision-making. However, interpreting LUS images remains highly operator-dependent, leading to variability in diagnosis. While deep learning (DL) models offer promising potential to automate LUS interpretation, their development is limited by the scarcity of annotated datasets specifically focused on vertical artifacts. This study introduces a curated dataset of 401 high-resolution LUS images, each annotated with polygonal bounding boxes to indicate vertical artifact locations. The images were collected from 152 patients with pulmonary conditions at Mulago and Kiruddu National Referral Hospitals in Uganda. This dataset serves as a valuable resource for training and evaluating DL models designed to accurately detect and localize LUS vertical artifacts, contributing to the advancement of AI-driven diagnostic tools for early detection and monitoring of respiratory diseases.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207