Temporal Artery versus Bladder Thermometry during Adult Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Monitoring: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate agreement between a new and widely implemented method of temperature measurement in critical care, temporal artery thermometry and an established method of core temperature measurement, bladder thermometry as performed in clinical practice. METHODS: Temperatures were simultaneously recorded hourly (n = 736 observations) using both devices as part of routine clinical monitoring in 14 critically ill adult patients with temperatures ranging >/=1 degrees C prior to consent. RESULTS: The mean difference between temporal artery and bladder temperatures measured was -0.44 degrees C (95% confidence interval, -0.47 degrees C to -0.41 degrees C), with temporal artery readings lower than bladder temperatures. Agreement between the two devices was greatest for normothermia (36.0 degrees C to < 38.3 degrees C) (mean difference -0.35 degrees C [95% confidence interval, -0.37 degrees C to -0.33 degrees C]). The temporal artery thermometer recorded higher temperatures during hypothermia (< 36 degrees C) (mean difference 0.66 degrees C [95% confidence interval, 0.53 degrees C to 0.79 degrees C]) and lower temperatures during hyperthermia (>/=38.3 degrees C) (mean difference -0.90 degrees C [95% confidence interval, -0.99 degrees C to -0.81 degrees C]). The sensitivity for detecting fever (core temperature >/=38.3 degrees C) using the temporal artery thermometer was 0.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.33), and the specificity was 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 0.99). The positive likelihood ratio for fever was 24.6 (95% confidence interval, 10.7 to 56.8); the negative likelihood ratio was 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Temporal artery thermometry produces somewhat surprising disagreement with an established method of core temperature measurement and should not to be used in situations where body temperature needs to be measured with accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".