Comparison of temporal artery, rectal and esophageal core temperatures in children: Results of a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rectal thermometry correlates with core temperature and represents the criterion standard of measuring temperatures in young children. However, it has numerous disadvantages, and thus, an alternative method of measuring temperature with similar agreement with the core temperature as rectal thermometry is desired. A new, noninvasive temporal artery (TA) thermometer synthesizes the skin surface and ambient temperatures to produce an arterial temperature. OBJECTIVE: To examine the agreement between the TA and esophageal core thermometers, and to compare it with that between rectal and esophageal temperatures. METHODS: In the present prospective, cross-sectional agreement study, intubated surgical outpatients younger than 18 years of age had temperatures measured with esophageal and rectal probes, and rectal electronic and TA thermometers. The agreement between esophageal versus rectal and TA thermometers was analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficients and by differences between esophageal versus TA and rectal temperatures with 95% CIs. The esophageal-rectal and esophageal-TA slopes were compared by Student's t test. RESULTS: In 80 enrolled children, the intraclass correlation coefficients for the esophageal probe versus rectal probe, rectal electronic thermometer and TA thermometer were 0.91, 0.95 and 0.88, respectively. The mean esophageal-rectal difference was 0.00+/-0.18 degrees C and esophageal-TA difference was 0.14+/-0.20 degrees C. Linear regression analysis of the relation between esophageal probe versus rectal probe, rectal thermometer and TA thermometer yielded slopes of 0.93, 0.94 and 0.89, respectively. The slopes were neither different from each other (P=0.70) nor from the value of 1. CONCLUSION: The TA and esophageal thermometers agree well, and the esophageal-TA and esophageal-rectal temperature agreements are not significantly different.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".