Diaphragm ultrasound for muscle strength assessment: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess if diaphragmatic ultrasound (DU) reflects diaphragmatic muscle strenght when compared to respiratory tests and neurophysiological studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on adults undergoing DU, compared to any respiratory or neurophysiological technique. The search strategy was applied in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and the analysis was conducted using the PRISMA methodology. Three eligibility assessment stages were performed: title, abstract, and full-text reading. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. RESULTS: Out of 155 identified articles, 25 were selected for full-text review (14 non-randomised studies, 8 case-control studies, and 3 randomised studies). The overall risk of bias was moderate, with the main biases related to population selection and intervention assessment.Twenty-three articles used maximal inspiratory pressure measurement as a comparator which showed a weak-to-moderate correlation, significant in 10 studies, with diaphragmatic excursion. Three studies reported a weak association between diaphragmatic thickening and sniff pressure.Five articles reported a concordant correlation between diaphragmatic thickening and compound muscle action potential amplitude, significant only in one study. CONCLUSION: The variability of results obtained across different pathologies does not support the use of DU alone to predict diaphragmatic muscle strength.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".