MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400033850 · doi:10.2196/50585

Temperature Measurement Timings and the Fever Detection Rate After Gastrointestinal Surgery: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4400033850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shiqi Wang, Gang Ji, Xiangying Feng, Luguang Huang, Pengfei Yu, Jiyang Zheng, Bin Yang, Xiangjie Wang, Qingchuan Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCross-sectional studyMedicineRetrospective cohort studySurgeryPathologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative fever frequently indicates surgical complications and is commonly used to evaluate the efficacy of interventions against surgical stress. However, the presence of circadian rhythms in body temperature may compromise the accurate detection of fever. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the detection rate of fever under intermittent measurement. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of patients who underwent nonemergency gastrointestinal surgery between November 2020 and April 2021. Patients' temperature data were continuously collected every 4 seconds using a wireless axillary thermometer, and fever was defined as a temperature exceeding 38 °C within a day. To simulate intermittent measurement in clinical practice, the body temperature at each hour was selected from the continuously collected temperature dataset. Considering that temperatures are measured multiple times per day, all possible measurement plans using intermittent measurement were composed by combining 1-24 time points from the 24-hour daily cycle. Fever was clinically diagnosed based on the temperature readings at the selected time points per day. The fever detection rates for each plan, with varying measurement times, were listed and ranked. RESULTS: Based on the temperature data continuously collected by the thermometer, fever occurred in 60 (40.8%) of the 147 included patients within 3 days after surgery. Of the measurement plans that included 1-24 measurements daily, the fever detection rates ranged from 3.3% (2/60) to 85% (51/60). The highest detection rates and corresponding timings for measurement plans with 1, 2, 3, and 4 measurements daily were 38.3% (23/60; at 8 PM), 56.7% (34/60; at 3 AM and 7 or 8 PM), 65% (39/60; at 3 AM, 8 PM, and 10 or 11 PM), and 70% (42/60; at 12 AM, 3 AM, 8 PM, and 11 PM), respectively; and the lowest detection rates were 3.3% (2/60), 6.7% (4/60), 6.7% (4/60), and 8.3% (5/60), respectively. Although fever within 3 days after surgery was not correlated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications (5/60, 8.3% vs 6/87, 6.9%; P=.76), it was correlated with a longer hospital stay (median 7, IQR 6-9 days vs median 6, IQR 5-7 days; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The fever detection rate of the intermittent approach is determined by the timing and frequency of measurement. Measuring at randomly selected time points can miss many fever events after gastrointestinal surgery. However, we can improve the fever detection rate by optimizing the timing and frequency of measurement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207