Evaluation of Noninvasive Thermometers in an Endoscopy Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of body temperature is an important aspect of assessment prior to invasive procedures. The purpose of the study was to determine the level of agreement between temporal artery, noncontact infrared, and disposable oral electronic thermometers to a clinical reference device (nondisposable oral electronic thermometer) in outpatients prior to an endoscopic procedure. A descriptive, method-comparison study design was used to compare 3 noninvasive thermometers with a clinical reference device. Four noninvasive temperatures were measured with 3 test devices (temporal artery with ear tap; temporal artery without ear tap; disposable oral electronic; and noncontact infrared), followed by measurement with the clinical reference device (nondisposable, oral electronic). Differences (bias) and limits of agreement (±1.96 SD) were calculated for the test devices and graphed using Bland-Altman method. Clinically acceptable levels of agreement were set at a bias of 0.54 °F or less and precision of 0.90 °F or less. A total of 25 endoscopy patients (N = 14 female; N = 11 male) were studied, with temperatures ranging from 97.5 to 98.9, averaging 98.1 ± 0.3 °F. All thermometers, with the exception of the noncontact infrared (0.66 °F), had acceptable ranges for use in clinical practices. Findings from this study support the use of both temporal artery and disposable oral electronic thermometers in afebrile outpatients but not the noncontact infrared thermometer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".