For those interested in starting an ultrasound program, here is a good sight to start:
http://uicuplab.com/before_you_scan.php
http://uicuplab.com/before_you_scan.php
Ultrasound Info
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
so let me get this straight.....they are field techs and interpreters? Doesnt that defeat the whole purpose of having data collected and processed without bias? This was the only EPD that was based soley on science, I have my concerns. I'll stick with the CUPLAB for integrity. On a positive note the "before you scan" info is very good.
bigpapa-t
bigpapa-t
MikeC
Well-known member
bigpapa-t":1n6lsmxv said:
No. They have field techs who also have training in interpretation but none do both on the same animals.
Craig has the utmost in integrity. There is no bias. The techs send the info to the lab for interpretation.
bigpapa-t":1g6f1br3 said:
you might want to look into the CUP et al for their methods.
they use interpreters too. this is determined by what the reader thinks it is. I dont know if you have seen the report or not, but it shows how the exact same images were sent to 2 different labs and some results showed a 30+% difference in results.
the people reading the ultrasound images arent exactly high-paid professionals either, so dont have too lofty ideals about the "integrity" of any results.
it is my understanding that the cuplab does not allow any approved techs to interpret as well as not allowing any interpreters to collect and submit images. That is clearly not the case with this other lab, just seems a little sketchy to me....that being said, I am sure everything is on the up and up, it just leaves the door open for improprieties.
bigpapa-t
bigpapa-t
MikeC
Well-known member
bigpapa-t":nf4mifmn said:
Craigs Hays Wife - Becky. also interprets for the CUPLab:
http://www.nalf.org/2002techlist.htm
There is nothing sketchy about Critical Insights. They were in on the founding of the CupLab.
Understood....
but again I will try to clearly state the following:
in dealing with anything scientific you must try and remove ANY variables...this includes even a possible variable. While I am sure this isnt even a problem, it should be very easy to eliminate the possibilities from ever becoming a problem, agree?
why not remove any question, it just seems that simple to me.
I guess I just prefer it to be as scientific as possible....heck, the fact that ALL the labs use the term "interpret" bothers me to no end!!
but again I will try to clearly state the following:
in dealing with anything scientific you must try and remove ANY variables...this includes even a possible variable. While I am sure this isnt even a problem, it should be very easy to eliminate the possibilities from ever becoming a problem, agree?
why not remove any question, it just seems that simple to me.
I guess I just prefer it to be as scientific as possible....heck, the fact that ALL the labs use the term "interpret" bothers me to no end!!
bigpapa-t":hl0wrfwp said:
I see your point, and I agree......
but my position would be the labs are doing the interpretation as an additional service. Their has to be some interpretation or analysis of the data at some point or the client would only get the raw data they may or may not know what to do with.
Its kind of like the intelligence community. You can present the fact to the powers that be all day long, but if someone doesnt connect the dots for them they will just give you this blank stare like you are speaking "Gibberish" and Lord help you if later its determined you connected the dots wrong.
Its not like the dots are numbered.
MikeC
Well-known member
What question? Just because some have been trained to interpret AND collect data. there's a question?
I would think that someone interpreting the data would be ahead of the game if they understood the field tech's responsiblities.
And vice-versa.
You agree with what?
MikeC":2wqsk7yw said:
Its called interpretation. Just be definition its subjective. They are saying this is how their software interprets the data, not this is what it means without doubt.
A different program with different variables may interpret the data differently.
Let me qualify that with I understand that most scientific studies have some interpretation. I just feel that there should be a deliniation between the results, ie scientific process, and the interpretation of the results.
MikeC
Well-known member
3MR":32e486f2 said:
But with software doing the interpreting, wouldn't that be more scientific, consistent, dependable, and reliable than a person looking at a picture and making a judgement call?
Look, you guys started out questioning these folks integrity, which was ridiculous. Now your saying their methods aren't scientific.
Craig was a pioneer in ultrasound and has an impeccable reputation. If you don't want to use them feel free.
But there is no better ultrasound data collection service. Anywhere.
I'm done. Get lost.
Running Arrow Bill
Well-known member
Regarding ultrasound "testing" and "interpretation":
First, ANY diagnostic procedure (e.g., medical, psychological, academic, veterinary, etc.) first uses a "test" procedure using "test equipment". The results and information from the test vary with the type of test used. A "test" can be simply visual (e.g., behavioral observation), using special "Tests" (procedures), or special equipment appropriate for the test being used.
Second, a "test" is "Scored" based on relative criteria (observed or inferred evidence, standard scores, historical averages, lab results, etc.).
Third, a "test" is "interpreted" by a qualified practitioner, based on test scores, field notes, etc.
Fourth, a "conclusion" (e.g., diagnosis) is arrived at based on the interpretation of test results.
Fifth, a plan of action (e.g., treatment, procedure, decision) is then presecribed based on the "diagnosis".
In sum, a "test" can be anything as simple as a "Yes/No" observation (e.g., pregnant or not, male or female, yellow car or not). It can be as complicated as a series of "sub-tests" which contribute to the "total test" (score or results).
The "accuracy" of any test is highly relative to the statistical probability issues of "Validity" and "Reliability" which are based on the level of statistical significance (e.g., at the .01, .05, .001 level), etc. As in "what are the chances that X result can happen BY CHANCE out of X number of observations, etc.").
Ok...so much for the "technical" aspects of testing...lol.
:cboy:
First, ANY diagnostic procedure (e.g., medical, psychological, academic, veterinary, etc.) first uses a "test" procedure using "test equipment". The results and information from the test vary with the type of test used. A "test" can be simply visual (e.g., behavioral observation), using special "Tests" (procedures), or special equipment appropriate for the test being used.
Second, a "test" is "Scored" based on relative criteria (observed or inferred evidence, standard scores, historical averages, lab results, etc.).
Third, a "test" is "interpreted" by a qualified practitioner, based on test scores, field notes, etc.
Fourth, a "conclusion" (e.g., diagnosis) is arrived at based on the interpretation of test results.
Fifth, a plan of action (e.g., treatment, procedure, decision) is then presecribed based on the "diagnosis".
In sum, a "test" can be anything as simple as a "Yes/No" observation (e.g., pregnant or not, male or female, yellow car or not). It can be as complicated as a series of "sub-tests" which contribute to the "total test" (score or results).
The "accuracy" of any test is highly relative to the statistical probability issues of "Validity" and "Reliability" which are based on the level of statistical significance (e.g., at the .01, .05, .001 level), etc. As in "what are the chances that X result can happen BY CHANCE out of X number of observations, etc.").
Ok...so much for the "technical" aspects of testing...lol.
:cboy:
MikeC":35pby9if said:3MR":35pby9if said:
But with software doing the interpreting, wouldn't that be more scientific, consistent, dependable, and reliable than a person looking at a picture and making a judgement call?
Look, you guys started out questioning these folks integrity, which was ridiculous. Now your saying their methods aren't scientific.
Craig was a pioneer in ultrasound and has an impeccable reputation. If you don't want to use them feel free.
But there is no better ultrasound data collection service. Anywhere.
I'm done. Get lost.
Hey, dont get mad at me, You are missinterpretting my answer. I am agreaing with you. I think they need to do it as well. I think what they do is way more accurate than what someone on the ground might do. Im just talking about the symantics of the word scientific. Lets not ignore the results or its need over what we call it.
dj
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,607
- Reaction score
- 1
MikeC The tips section was interesting. I guess this is way I better be going. Here's another site that tells about that companies ultrasound program and process. Having never seen it done(we had kids when you found out when they got here) I found it informative. But the site opens a whole can of worms, grass fed vs feedlot, genetic selection and gene registration, contract livestock vs owning your own, etc. And it is a computer resource hog so if you have dail-up you may want to skip it. The part about ultrasound starts at page 20 something.
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/pas ... 011306.pdf
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/pas ... 011306.pdf
MikeC
RELAX!!!
I never questioned The Hays' integrity, only the process.
I didnt mean to ruffle any feathers. I wish you would read all of my comments and not read more into it.
I think everyone should use the ultrasound technology available, no matter what lab they choose. And if we are lucky maybe one day all of the labs will operate the exact same way to ensure the integrity of the data.
I appreciate your fire....just remember...just because somebody questions something doesnt mean that he is opposed to it.
RELAX!!!
I never questioned The Hays' integrity, only the process.
I didnt mean to ruffle any feathers. I wish you would read all of my comments and not read more into it.
I think everyone should use the ultrasound technology available, no matter what lab they choose. And if we are lucky maybe one day all of the labs will operate the exact same way to ensure the integrity of the data.
I appreciate your fire....just remember...just because somebody questions something doesnt mean that he is opposed to it.
