Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is highly contagious with limited treatment options. Early and accurate diagnosis of Covid-19 is crucial in reducing the spread of the disease and its accompanied mortality. Currently, detection by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard of outpatient and inpatient detection of Covid-19. RT-PCR is a rapid method; however, its accuracy in detection is only ~70–75%. Another approved strategy is computed tomography (CT) imaging. CT imaging has a much higher sensitivity of ~80–98%, but similar accuracy of 70%. To enhance the accuracy of CT imaging detection, we developed an open-source framework, CovidCTNet, composed of a set of deep learning algorithms that accurately differentiates Covid-19 from community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and other lung diseases. CovidCTNet increases the accuracy of CT imaging detection to 95% compared to radiologists (70%). CovidCTNet is designed to work with heterogeneous and small sample sizes independent of the CT imaging hardware. To facilitate the detection of Covid-19 globally and assist radiologists and physicians in the screening process, we are releasing all algorithms and model parameter details as open-source. Open-source sharing of CovidCTNet enables developers to rapidly improve and optimize services while preserving user privacy and data ownership.

Background:Rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) is the most recent emergency ultrasound protocol, designed to help clinicians better recognize distinctive shock etiologies in a shorter time frame.Objectives:In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the RUSH protocol, performed by an emergency physician or radiologist, in predicting the type of shock in critical patients.Patients and Methods:An emergency physician or radiologist performed the RUSH protocol for all patients with shock status at the emergency department. All patients were closely followed to determine their final clinical diagnosis. The agreement between the initial impression provided by RUSH and the final diagnosis was investigated by calculating the Kappa index. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of RUSH for diagnosis of each case.Results:We performed RUSH on 77 patients. Kappa index was 0.71 (P Value = 0.000), reflecting acceptable general agreement between initial impression and final diagnosis. For hypovolemic, cardiogenic and obstructive shock, the protocol had an NPV above 97% yet it had a lower PPV. For shock with distributive or mixed etiology, RUSH showed a PPV of 100% but it had low sensitivity. Subgroup analysis showed a similar Kappa index for the emergency physician and radiologist (0.70 and 0.73, respectively) in performing rush.Conclusions:This study highlights the role of the RUSH exam performed by an emergency physician, to make a rapid and reliable diagnosis of shock etiology, especially in order to rule out obstructive, cardiogenic and hypovolemic shock types in initial exam of shock patients.

Background:Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) is a recently reported emergency ultrasound protocol designed to help clinicians better recognize distinctive shock etiologies in a short time. We tried to evaluate the accuracy of early RUSH protocol performed by emergency physicians to predict the shock type in critically ill patients.Materials and Methods:Our prospective study was approved by the ethics committee of trauma research center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Science, Iran. We enrolled 52 patients with shock state in the emergency department from April 2013 to October 2013. We performed early bed-side sonographic examination for participants based on RUSH protocol. Patients received all needed standard therapeutic and diagnostic interventions without delay and were followed to document their final diagnosis. Agreement (Kappa index) of initial impression provided by RUSH with final diagnosis, and also sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of RUSH for diagnosis of each shock type were calculated.Results:Fifty-two patients were enrolled in our study. Kappa index was 0.7 (P value = 0.000), reflecting acceptable general agreement between initial impression and final diagnosis. For hypovolemic and obstructive shocks, the protocol had sensitivity of 100% but had lower PPV. For shocks with distributive or mixed etiology, RUSH showed PPV of 100% but had low sensitivity. For cardiogenic shocks, all reliability indices were above 90%.Conclusion:We highlight the role of RUSH examination in the hands of an emergency physician in making a rapid diagnosis of shock etiology, especially in ruling out obstructive, cardiogenic, and hypovolemic types.

Background:Anogenital distance (AGD) is a feasible and accepted parameter of exogenous or endogenous androgens effects on development of reproductive system.Objectives:Since there is no report on penile length (PL) and AGD in our region, we investigated these parameters in male newborns in Golestan Province, Iran.Patients and Methods:In this cross-sectional study, we measured stretched PL and AGD in term newborns from different races in Dezyani Gynecologic Hospital of Gorgan, Iran. We also recorded the anthropometric parameters and maternal age. The data was analyzed using the SPSS 14.Results:Means of PL and AGD of 427 healthy term newborns were 32.1 ± 3.5 and 24.5 ± 2.5 mm, respectively. There was a positive correlation between PL and AGD (r = 0.097, P = 0.046). According to their ethnicity, there were 166 Fars (38.9%), 129 Turkmen (30.2%), and 132 Sistani (30.9%) infants with mean PL of respectively 31.8 ± 3.9, 32.3 ± 3.3, and 32.4 ± 3.3 mm and mean AGD of respectively 25 ± 2.5, 24.3 ± 2.5, and 24 ± 2.5 mm. One Fars neonate (0.23%) had micropenis (PL = 21.3 mm).Conclusions:Using -2.5 standard deviations as the cutoff for micropenis, a newborn infant in Golestan Province with a PL of < 23.3 mm had micropenis; however, more investigations are needed to clarify this issue.