An evaluation of underbody forced‐air and resistive heating during hypothermic, on‐pump cardiac surgery*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of underbody forced-air warming (Arizant Healthcare Inc, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) with an underbody resistive heating mattress (Inditherm Patient Warming System, Rotherham, UK) and passive insulation in 129 patients having hypothermic cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were separated from cardiopulmonary bypass at a core temperature of 35 °C and external warming continued until the end of surgery. Before cardiopulmonary bypass, the temperature-vs-time slopes were significantly greater in both active warming groups than in the passive insulation group (p < 0.001 for each). However, the slopes of forced-air and resistive warming did not differ (p = 0.55). After cardiopulmonary bypass, the rate of rewarming was significantly greater with forced-air than with resistive warming or passive insulation (p < 0.001 for each), while resistive warming did not differ from passive insulation (p = 0.14). However, absolute temperature differences among the groups were small.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it