Ultrasound Reliability of Blood Flow Measurements in Neck Vasculature: A Comparison Between a Novice and Experienced Sonographer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current literature on the reliability of ultrasound in measuring blood flow volume of the neck vasculature remains sparse, especially when comparing the reliability of these measurements taken by a novice sonographer to an experienced sonographer. This study sought to examine the reliability of blood flow measurements taken by a novice and experienced sonographer in the left common carotid artery (CCA), internal carotid artery (ICA), and vertebral artery (VA) using duplex Doppler ultrasound (DDU). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) revealed poor inter-rater reliability within the CCA (-.127 to .445) and ICA (.066 to .321), and moderate reliability in the VA (.694 to .725). ICCs also revealed moderate intra-rater reliability of novice blood flow measurements in the CCA (.701) and ICA (.729), and good reliability in the VA (.818). Results demonstrated an overall lack of inter-rater reliability, suggesting a single sonographer be used for research involving repeated evaluations to increase consistency in measures.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".