Comparison of the Temporal Artery and Rectal Thermometry in Children in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rectal thermometry, the criterion standard of temperature measurement in young children, has numerous disadvantages. This study examined the agreement between rectal versus a new temporal artery professional model (TAPM) thermometer and rectal versus a home device temporal artery consumer model (TACM) thermometer, investigated if the TAPM can safely screen for rectal fever, and determined if parents can detect rectal fever using the TACM. DESIGN, OUTCOME MEASURES, AND SUBJECTS: In this cross-sectional agreement emergency department study, 327 children <24 months of age had their temperature measured rectally and by the TAPM and TACM by a single nurse and using the TACM by the parents. Agreements were analyzed by the Bland Altman plots. Temperature cutoff to detect rectal fever > or =38.0 degrees C and > or =38.3 degrees C with sensitivities of > or =90% and > or =95%, respectively, was determined for the TAPM. RESULTS: The mean difference between the rectal minus TAPM was -0.19 degrees C +/- 0.66 degrees C, and minus the TACM home device, it was +0.11 degrees C +/- 0.66 degrees C. The sensitivities of TAPM temperature of > or =37.7 degrees C to detect rectal fever > or =38.0 degrees C and > or =38.3 degrees C were 90% (95% confidence interval: 0.83; 0.94) and 97% (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 0.99), respectively. The parents detected 67% and 73% of rectal fevers 38.0 degrees C and > or =38.3 degrees C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPM thermometer cannot replace the rectal. However, TAPM temperature of <37.7 degrees C can be safely used as a screen to exclude rectal fever > or =38.3 degrees C in infants 3 to 24 months of age. The TACM home device has insufficient ability to detect rectal fever. A multicenter trial is needed to validate these results across multiple emergency departments and numerous observers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".