MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133781820 · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-6-3

Accuracy of parents in measuring body temperature with a tympanic thermometer

2005· article· en· W2133781820 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Robinson, Hsing Jou, Donald W. Spady

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Family Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermometerMedicineSignificant differenceMean differencePredictive valueLimits of agreementSurgeryNuclear medicineInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is now common for parents to measure tympanic temperatures in children. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these measurements. METHODS: Parents and then nurses measured the temperature of 60 children with a tympanic thermometer designed for home use (home thermometer). The reference standard was a temperature measured by a nurse with a model of tympanic thermometer commonly used in hospitals (hospital thermometer). A difference of >or= 0.5 degrees C was considered clinically significant. A fever was defined as a temperature >or= 38.5 degrees C. RESULTS: The mean absolute difference between the readings done by the parent and the nurse with the home thermometer was 0.44 +/- 0.61 degrees C, and 33% of the readings differed by >or= 0.5 degrees C. The mean absolute difference between the readings done by the parent with the home thermometer and the nurse with the hospital thermometer was 0.51 +/- 0.63 degrees C, and 72 % of the readings differed by >or= 0.5 degrees C. Using the home thermometer, parents detected fever with a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 50-93%), a specificity of 95% (95% CI 84-99%), a positive predictive value of 87% (95% CI 60-98%), and a negative predictive value of 91% (95% CI 79-98 %). In comparing the readings the nurse obtained from the two different tympanic thermometers, the mean absolute difference was 0.24 +/- 0.22 degrees C. Nurses detected fever with a sensitivity of 94% (95 % CI 71-100 %), a specificity of 88% (95% CI 75-96 %), a positive predictive value of 76% (95% CI 53-92%), and a negative predictive value of 97% (95%CI 87-100 %) using the home thermometer. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the three sets of readings was 0.80, and the consistency of readings was not affected by the body temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The readings done by parents with a tympanic thermometer designed for home use differed a clinically significant amount from the reference standard (readings done by nurses with a model of tympanic thermometer commonly used in hospitals) the majority of the time, and parents failed to detect fever about one-quarter of the time. Tympanic readings reported by parents should be interpreted with great caution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Family PracticeSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207