Non-Invasive Monitoring of Core Body Temperature for Targeted Temperature Management in Post-Cardiac Arrest Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Accurate monitoring of core body temperature is integral to targeted temperature management (TTM) following cardiac arrest. However, there are no reliable non-invasive methods for monitoring temperature during TTM. Objectives We compared the accuracy and precision of a novel non-invasive Zero-Heat-Flux Thermometer (SpotOn™) to a standard invasive esophageal probe in a cohort of patients undergoing TTM post-cardiac arrest. Design, Setting, and Participants We prospectively enrolled 20 patients undergoing post-cardiac arrest care in the intensive care units at the London Health Sciences Centre in London, Canada. A SpotOn™ probe was applied on each patient's forehead, while an esophageal temperature probe was inserted, and both temperature readings were recorded at 1-min intervals for the duration of TTM. Main outcomes and Measures We compared the SpotOn™ and esophageal monitors using the Bland–Altman analysis and the Pearson correlation, with accuracy set as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included precision and correlation. Bias exceeding 0.1°C and limits of agreement exceeding 0.5°C were considered clinically important. Results Sixteen (80%) of patients had complete data used in the final analysis. The median (interquartile range) duration of recording was 38 (12–56) h. Compared to the esophageal probe, SpotOn™ had a bias of 0.06 ± 0.45°C and 95% limits of agreement of −0.83 to 0.95°C. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.9663–0.9678), with a two-tailed p < 0.0001. Conclusion and Relevance The SpotOn™ is an accurate method that may enable non-invasive monitoring of core body temperature during TTM, although its precision is slightly worse than the predefined 0.5°C when compared to invasive esophageal probe.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".