Esophageal Cooling for Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Targeted temperature management (TTM) is a recognized treatment to decrease mortality and improve neurological function in hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. An esophageal cooling device (ECD) has been studied in animal models, but human data are limited. An ECD appears to offer similar benefits to intravascular cooling catheters, with potentially less risk to the patient. We studied whether the ECD could act as a substitute for intravascular cooling catheters in delivering adequate TTM after cardiac arrest. Nine patients admitted to the intensive care unit after cardiac arrest who required TTM were enrolled prospectively. The primary outcome measures were timeliness of insertion, ease of insertion, user Likert ratings, time to achieve a target temperature of 36°C, and time during which target temperature was maintained within 1°C of the 36°C goal for 24 hours by using an ECD. Time to reach target temperature was 0 to 540 minutes (mean: 113.33 minutes, median: 0 minute, standard deviation [SD]: 179.22). Maintenance of a target temperature of 36°C over 24 hours had a range of 58.33% to 100% (mean: 91.67%, median: 95.83%, SD: 13.34). Ease of insertion related to Likert ratings with a range of 1-9 (mean: 5.38, median: 5.5, SD: 3.43) and a simplicity of ECD uses a range of 4-10 (mean: 7.63, median: 8.0, SD: 1.65). Overall, there was preference for the ECD over intravascular cooling methods (mean: 6.71, mean: 6, SD: 3.01) and external cooling methods (mean: 8.0, median: 9.0, SD: 2.33). For patients requiring TTM, use of an ECD adequately allowed for TTM goals to be achieved and maintained. Overall, user evaluation was positive.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".