MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019721749 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31822b896d

A Randomized Comparison of Intraoperative PerfecTemp and Forced-Air Warming During Open Abdominal Surgery

2011· article· en· W2019721749 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Egan, Ethan Bernstein, Desigen Reddy, Ali Madi, James Paul, Dongsheng Yang, Daniel I. Sessler

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalAnesthesiaForced-airSurgeryAbdominal surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The PerfecTemp is an underbody resistive warming system that combines servocontrolled underbody warming with viscoelastic foam pressure relief. Clinical efficacy of the system has yet to be formally evaluated. We therefore tested the hypothesis that intraoperative distal esophageal (core) temperatures with the PerfecTemp (underbody resistive) warming system are noninferior to upper-body forced-air warming in patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS: Adults scheduled for elective major open abdominal surgery (liver, pancreas, gynecological, and colorectal surgery) under general anesthesia were enrolled at 2 centers. Patients were randomly assigned to underbody resistive or forced-air warming. Resistive heating started when patients were transferred to the operating room table; forced-air warming started after patients were draped. The primary outcome was noninferiority of intraoperative time-weighted average core temperature, adjusted for baseline characteristics and using a buffer of 0.5°C. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to underbody resistive heating and 34 to forced-air warming. Baseline and surgical characteristics were generally similar. We had sufficient evidence (P=0.018) to conclude that underbody resistive warming is not worse than (i.e., noninferior to) upper-body forced-air warming in the time-weighted average intraoperative temperature, with a mean difference of -0.12°C [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 0.14]. Core temperatures at the end of surgery averaged 36.3°C [95% CI 36 to 36.5] in the resistive warming patients and 36.6°C [95% CI 36.4 to 36.8] in those assigned to forced-air warming for a mean difference of -0.34°C [95% CI -0.69 to 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Mean intraoperative time-weighted average core temperatures were no different, and significantly noninferior, with underbody resistive heating in comparison with upper-body forced-air warming. Underbody resistive heating may be an alternative to forced-air warming.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207