A Prospective Comparison of TL-400 and NICOM for Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy in Gastrointestinal Tumors Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective : Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on NICOM(CheetahMedical, Vancouver, Washington) was highly associated with improved postoperative prognosis, but has several limitations. T-Line-400(TL-400, TensysMedical, San Diego, California) which is an emerging non-invasive hemodynamic monitor may be applicable for GDFT. Thus, the trial was to determine whether GDFT based on TL-400, when compared to GDFT based on NICOM, would lead to similar outcomes on patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor resection. Methods: 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tumors in Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from October 2020 to May 2021 were randomized into either TL-400 GDFT group (group T) or NICOM GDFT group (group N). The intraoperative fluid volume and the postoperative complications within 30 days were recorded. Results: There were no significantly statistical differences between groups with respect to the total fluid volume (2360 ±282ml vs 2295 ±223ml), the colloid volume (1167±153ml vs 1126±109ml), the crystalloid volume(1193 ±156ml vs 1173±157ml). Both GDFT based on TL-400 and NICOM strategies were equivalent for the first flatus(57.3±7.9 vs 58.5±8.5hours), wound healing time(11.2 ±1.2days vs 10.9±1.1days) and LOS(hospital length of stay) (13.3±1.4days vs 13.1±1.2days). In addition, the TL-400 had less data missing than the NICOM. Conclusion: TL-400 performs similarly to NICOM in guiding GDFT, with no significant differences in perioperative fluid infusion and postoperative prognosis in patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor resection. Compared with NICOM, TL-400 can avoid the interference of electrocoagulation and can capture more data. Trial registration: This study has been registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100046350) (http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".