Comparison of the TOFscan and the TOF-Watch SX during Recovery of Neuromuscular Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is required to ensure neuromuscular function has recovered completely at the time of tracheal extubation. The TOFscan (Drager Technologies, Canada) is a new three-dimensional acceleromyography device that measures movement of the thumb in multiple planes. The aim of this observational investigation was to assess the agreement between nonnormalized and normalized train-of-four values obtained with the TOF-Watch SX (Organon, Ireland) and those obtained with the TOFscan during recovery from neuromuscular blockade. METHODS: Twenty-five patients were administered rocuronium, and spontaneous recovery of neuromuscular blockade was allowed to occur. The TOFscan and TOF-Watch SX devices were applied to opposite arms. A preload was applied to the TOF-Watch SX, and calibration was performed before rocuronium administration. Both devices were activated, and train-of-four values were obtained every 15 s. Modified Bland-Altman analyses were conducted to compare train-of-four ratios measured with the TOFscan to those measured with the TOF-Watch SX (when train-of-four thresholds of 0.2 to 1.0 were achieved). RESULTS: Bias and 95% limits of agreement between the TOF-Watch SX and the TOFscan at nonnormalized train-of-four ratios between 0.2 and 1.0 were 0.021 and -0.100 to 0.141, respectively. When train-of-four measures with the TOF-Watch SX were normalized, bias and 95% limits of agreement between the TOF-Watch SX and the TOFscan at ratios between 0.2 and 1.0 were 0.015 and -0.097 to 0.126, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement between the TOF-Watch SX with calibration and preload application and the uncalibrated TOFscan was observed throughout all stages of neuromuscular recovery.
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 | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".